posted
Pursuant to a one-sided conversation in the "Admixture percentage estimates" thread. I decided to start a new thread to examine the issues surrounding the term African American.
The term is not very old, perhaps 30-40 years old. Some say that it was Jesse Jackson who popularized the term, no telling who actually coined it, though it was arrived at by trial and error. Going into those times, the terms "BLACK" and "AFRICAN" were INSULT terms. The preferred terms were "COLORED" or "NEGRO".
But with the awaking of "SOME" Blacks who were formally in a racism induced stupor: during the world-wide independence movements, and the "Civil Rights" movement in the U.S. A new racial term was need to UNITE the formally disparate Blacks in the United States.
The things that could Unite all Black Americans was the facts that they were all now Americans, and at one time they all originated in Africa, so the term "African American" was used - casually at first, then as a standard term.
Because there was no knowledge of ancient Black history among these people, there was no thought as to what confusions and misconceptions would me caused by the term. I will now investigate those issues.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a bit supporter of Africans and African-Americans. Afro-Americans would be the same thing. Same as Afro-Brazilians, Afro-Colombians, etc.
Black is just a color and we're not even black anyway as African people have all shades of brown. From dark to light brown (West Africans around Nigeria, Cameroon for example). Also other people like Indians have black skin, even darker than most Africans.
Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans like African-Americans speak to our roots in Africa (in our cases). Also to the fact that people are now living in America, thus Americans.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must admit that I never gave the term "African American" a thought, until in discussing Black Europeans: mena7's comments indicated that the young, unaware of the genesis of the term, thought that the term meant that someone had actually DETERMINED that all Blacks in the Americas were from Africa!
It was then that I realized just how "DANGEROUS" the term is. For by itself, it wipes out almost All of Black history.
i.e. If we declare that all Blacks are Africans and don't include our Albinos, then the history of the first Europeans is lost:
i.e. If we declare that all Blacks are Africans and don't include our Albinos, then the history of the first Americans is lost:
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I'm a bit supporter of Africans and African-Americans. Afro-Americans would be the same thing. Same as Afro-Brazilians, Afro-Colombians, etc.
Black is just a color and we're not even black anyway as African people have all shades of brown. From dark to light brown (West Africans around Nigeria, Cameroon for example). Also other people like Indians have black skin, even darker than most Africans.
Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans like African-Americans speak to our roots in Africa (in our cases). Also the the fact that people are now living in America, thus Americans.
I actually disagree with this concept.
Italian-Americans = Italy = distinguishable country, language and culture.
Irish-Americans = Ireland = distinguishable country and culture.
African-Americans = Africa = a continent that houses various countries (with borders that were designed by Europeans), languages (with European languages as the official language in many countries)and a hodge-podge of cultures.
The term "African-American" creates more questions than answers.
Many descendants of the trans-Atlantic slave trade cannot fathom what was lost.
Our heritage (culture, language, history, customs and identity) was completely obliterated.
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I'm a bit supporter of Africans and African-Americans. Afro-Americans would be the same thing. Same as Afro-Brazilians, Afro-Colombians, etc.
Black is just a color and we're not even black anyway as African people have all shades of brown. From dark to light brown (West Africans around Nigeria, Cameroon for example). Also other people like Indians have black skin, even darker than most Africans.
Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans like African-Americans speak to our roots in Africa (in our cases). Also the the fact that people are now living in America, thus Americans.
I actually disagree with this concept.
Italian-Americans = Italy = distinguishable country, language and culture.
Irish-Americans = Ireland = distinguishable country and culture.
African-Americans = Africa = a continent that houses various countries (with borders that were designed by Europeans), languages (with European languages as the official language in many cases)and a hodge-podge of cultures.
The term "african-American" creates more questions than answers.
Many descendants of the trans-Atlantic slave trade cannot fathom what was lost.
Well I'm a pan-African so I consider Africa one country like China or India.
We must not let the "Berlin Conference" fools us. There's no nation-state in Africa. It's an European concept.
Posts: 2981 | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike's proposal is that the vast majority of Blacks in America are not African
He says "African American" a misnomer, that black people in America have deep rooted ancestry in Europe going back thousands of years. Therefore the proper term for most Blacks in America is European American (or German, French British, etc.) White people have hidden our true Europeaness which goes back to the original Europeans. The ancestors of most Blacks in America haven't set foot in Africa for over over 40,000 years and are no more African than a Chinese person, the only African factor is that if you go back far enough all mankind started in Africa. In other words "African American" is a mistake. Most black people in America are no more African than white people. Blacks in America are deep rooted Europeans, more European than so called white people
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amun-Ra The Ultimate and mena7 - In order to make the issue "REAL" for you, I will put the issue into numbers for you.
First lets set the main parameter:
ALL SERIOUS SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT THE NUMBER OF AFRICAN SLAVES IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES WAS APPROXIMATELY 500,000.
Some estimate that an additional 38,000 to 50,000 Slaves were smuggled into the United States from the Caribbean after the Slave trade was outlawed.
SO THAT ASSUMING THAT ALL BLACKS IN THE UNITED STATED WERE FROM AFRICA, BY 1865 THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF AFRICAN SLAVES IMPORTED TO THE UNITED STATES WAS 550,000
There is a mathematical formula for calculating the time needed for a population to DOUBLE!
Doubling time:
The doubling time is the period of time required for a quantity to double in size or value. It is applied to population growth, inflation, resource extraction, consumption of goods, compound interest, the volume of malignant tumours, and many other things which tend to grow over time. When the relative growth rate (not the absolute growth rate) is constant, the quantity undergoes exponential growth and has a constant doubling time or period which can be calculated directly from the growth rate.
This time can be calculated by dividing the natural logarithm of 2 by the exponent of growth, or approximated by dividing 70 by the percentage growth rate (more roughly but roundly, dividing 72; see the rule of 72 for details and a derivation of this formula).
The doubling time is a characteristic unit (a natural unit of scale) for the exponential growth equation, and its converse for exponential decay is the half-life.
For example, given Canada's net population growth of 0.9% in the year 2006, dividing 70 by 0.9 gives an approximate doubling time of 78 years. Thus if the growth rate remains constant, Canada's population would double from its 2006 figure of 33 million to 66 million by 2084.
NATURALLY CANADA'S POPULATION IS AMONG THE WORLDS HEALTHIEST, AND IN NO WAY COULD BE COMPARED TO UNDERFED OVERWORKED SLAVES OF LONG AGO.
But I will do it anyway to make my point.
In 1808 the importation of Slaves from Africa was outlawed: at that time there were about 1,377,808 Blacks in the United States.
By 1886 the BEST the Black population of the United States COULD have been was: 2,755,616. So that by 1900 the Black population would have been about 2,810,000.
BUT in 1900 the ACTUAL TOTAL BLACK POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES WAS 8,840,789
posted
Mike argues that the number of black people said to be enslaved in the United States cannot account for the 38 million today and that the figure is three times higher than it should be, therefore 2 out of 3 blacks at least must be European and not African
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate: I'm a bit supporter of Africans and African-Americans. Afro-Americans would be the same thing. Same as Afro-Brazilians, Afro-Colombians, etc.
Black is just a color and we're not even black anyway as African people have all shades of brown. From dark to light brown (West Africans around Nigeria, Cameroon for example). Also other people like Indians have black skin, even darker than most Africans.
Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans like African-Americans speak to our roots in Africa (in our cases). Also the the fact that people are now living in America, thus Americans.
I actually disagree with this concept.
Italian-Americans = Italy = distinguishable country, language and culture.
Irish-Americans = Ireland = distinguishable country and culture.
African-Americans = Africa = a continent that houses various countries (with borders that were designed by Europeans), languages (with European languages as the official language in many countries)and a hodge-podge of cultures.
The term "African-American" creates more questions than answers.
Many descendants of the trans-Atlantic slave trade cannot fathom what was lost.
Our heritage (culture, language, history, customs and identity) was completely obliterated.
The term "African-American" does not create more questions than it solves. It solves the question of what continent black people are from rather than from nowhere. Similarly "European" or "Asian " And most of us can break that down further and make a good assumption it's primarily West Africa. Without "Africa" there is no connection to anywhere not even a continent. Our heritage (culture, language, history, customs and identity) was not completely obliterated. African culture lives on as a strong influence in things like Gospel, Jazz and Hip Hop music and the history of black invention in America. You can't throw out the baby with the bath water and not even have a continent indicated because we were robbed of knowing our specific place of origin. The fact is racism has instilled shame about being African, therefor preference for "black' over "African American' is a way of cutting off the root for good and the secret desire of many black folk is to cut off that root and be considered pure American. It's similar to white Americans not wanting to be British and starting a revolution. The only problem is the most American Americans are the Indians, none of the above.
-I'm talking here about African Americans not most "black people" in America. As Mike will continue to prove most blacks in America are Europeans and haven't set foot in Africa for over 40,000 years
quote:Originally posted by Amun-Ra The Ultimate:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Mike argues
What's up with you arguing Mike's position in his place?
Mike as you had noted in the other thread sometimes has trouble spelling out his position so the people can understand it. He can go on and on for four pages with big capital letters and exclamation points doing a big expose but still people are left wondering what alternative point of view he is endorsing. We know what he is against but what he is for? what is his correction ? It can sometimes appear fuzzy unclear., mysterious. That's the way some of these great teachers are. They are not on the same plane as we common folk. That's where as Mike's assistant I come in and help interpret Mike's teachings so the average Joe can understand it. I have been following Mike's teachings and reading his wonderful website for a long time. Now I've been appointed as humble helper to get the message out to the people. But alas, I will fall back for a while and let the master speak
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lioness - No-way would I ever appoint you as one of my disciples. Do you know the story of the fool bitten by the Snake? Well I do!
Anyway, it appears the truth still cannot penetrate lifetimes of indoctrination, so I would ask everyone to simply try and muse it around a little bit.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Amun-Ra The Ultimate and mena7 - In order to make the issue "REAL" for you, I will put the issue into numbers for you.
First lets set the main parameter:
ALL SERIOUS SCIENTISTS AGREE THAT THE NUMBER OF AFRICAN SLAVES IMPORTED INTO THE UNITED STATES WAS APPROXIMATELY 500,000.
Some estimate that an additional 38,000 to 50,000 Slaves were smuggled into the United States from the Caribbean after the Slave trade was outlawed.
SO THAT ASSUMING THAT ALL BLACKS IN THE UNITED STATED WERE FROM AFRICA, BY 1865 THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF AFRICAN SLAVES IMPORTED TO THE UNITED STATES WAS 550,000
There is a mathematical formula for calculating the time needed for a population to DOUBLE!
Doubling time:
The doubling time is the period of time required for a quantity to double in size or value. It is applied to population growth, inflation, resource extraction, consumption of goods, compound interest, the volume of malignant tumours, and many other things which tend to grow over time. When the relative growth rate (not the absolute growth rate) is constant, the quantity undergoes exponential growth and has a constant doubling time or period which can be calculated directly from the growth rate.
This time can be calculated by dividing the natural logarithm of 2 by the exponent of growth, or approximated by dividing 70 by the percentage growth rate (more roughly but roundly, dividing 72; see the rule of 72 for details and a derivation of this formula).
The doubling time is a characteristic unit (a natural unit of scale) for the exponential growth equation, and its converse for exponential decay is the half-life.
For example, given Canada's net population growth of 0.9% in the year 2006, dividing 70 by 0.9 gives an approximate doubling time of 78 years. Thus if the growth rate remains constant, Canada's population would double from its 2006 figure of 33 million to 66 million by 2084.
NATURALLY CANADA'S POPULATION IS AMONG THE WORLDS HEALTHIEST, AND IN NO WAY COULD BE COMPARED TO UNDERFED OVERWORKED SLAVES OF LONG AGO.
But I will do it anyway to make my point.
In 1808 the importation of Slaves from Africa was outlawed: at that time there were about 1,377,808 Blacks in the United States.
By 1886 the BEST the Black population of the United States COULD have been was: 2,755,616. So that by 1900 the Black population would have been about 2,810,000.
BUT in 1900 the ACTUAL TOTAL BLACK POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES WAS 8,840,789
SO THEN BOYS AND GIRLS, WHERE DID THE OTHER 6,030,789 BLACK AMERICANS COME FROM????
Mike per the constitution the census continue to count only 1/12, the Blacks in the U.S., like they did during slavery.
I prefer the term Negro or Afro-American. There are presently too many immigrants from Africa, in the United States to call native born Blacks: African Americans.
posted
Amun Ra the Ultimate is right African American is the best name to describe black people in America.The appellation African American connect black people to the first human on earth, to the great civilizations of Kemet/Egypt, Kush, Maa confederation,the Nok, Carthage, Ghana, Garamatia, Mauritania. The appellation African American connect black American to civilizations created by their ancestors like Canaan/Phoenicia, Sumeria, Elam, Shang, Harrapa, Xi, Minoa, Moors etc.
The word black is a bad word in the English and European languages. The word black is use to describe evil and dirtiness exemple black market, black day, black heart, black cat etc. The color white is use to describe good thing and pure thing.In Ancient Egypt the color black was a positive color, black was use to describe the God , a smart person, a rich person, a lucky person, a great day etc. Red was an evil color in Egypt.White is not a good word to describe European because most European are pale and some European are brown.Black is not a good word to describe African because some African are brown and the word was corrupted by racist European.
Some black people are ashamed to be African because of recent history were African were slaves and because of wars, genocides and famines in Africa. Those people do not realise Africa was great for 100,000 years giving the world humanity, civilizations, science, religion, alphabet, philosophy, astrology etc.Because of the Hermetic law of rythm no race, people, country and civilization can stay on top forever, they will fall someday, what goes up most come down.The racisme against black people in the Western world is not the fault of African it is the fault of the white European who replace them as world power.The White had no honnor and grace to treated their black parent and former master humanly.Yes African kingdoms were wrong to selled their enemies and prisoner of wars to SERVITUDE but the white European who said they were Christian didnt have to treated them in a inhuman way(murder, torture, rape, lynching,dismenberement, cattlebreeding,overworking etc).
AmunRa the Ultimate is right black people in Europe are African who migrated there in Prehistory, Ancient time and early classical time.In 1200 BC white European started to migrate to Europe from the Russian steppes and mixed with the black European.According to the classical historians testimony Southern Europe was in majority brown skin mulato in the time of the Roman Empire.After the white barbarian invasion of Europe from the Russian steppes in 500 CE unmix European black and brown European became a minority in Europe.Europe was a multiracial continent since classical time, you cant call Europe a land of black people.
Afrocentric researcher like Egmond Codfried stated that the European monarchy and nobily was black/brown.This is possible since the oldest European were black but I dont see white European people deposing in Europe and enslaving in America their worldwide connected black nobility who also have white branch of their family by late mixture.It looks like the white Euro bourgeois force the black nobility to married them.
Lioness is right African American culture, language, custom like gospel music, Jazz music and other connect them to Africa.The CAPSEMO theory of Marc Washington connect black Europe to africa.Scholar Melo N Josias book Les Racines Bantoues du Latin(The Bantu roots of Latin) also connect Europe to Africa.
Im proud to be associated with Africa that I think is the real Holy Land.Thanks to God the European didnt destroyed Africa. Africa will be great again.
posted
You know I watch a whole bunch of scholars make arguments for African American, Afro-American, black, etc ... but what bothers me more about these arguments and the sides they come from is that most people fail to trace the literal steps back to Africa.
As most should know, most of the people that were taken from the West Coast of Africa were actually brought to the West Coast of Africa first. West Africa is where the ports of departure was from - but many of the people who were enslaved were actually from Southern Europe who didn't escape the Renaissance aka 'Rebirth' of Europe.
The Portuguese under the orders of Pope Nicholas V(1425) were authorized to capture and enslave indigenous North Africans who many fled from South Europe after the unifying of the Arabic Moors and European Christians sought to execute the Moors of Europe.
Now the question is - did this ancient Moors of Southern Europe and North Africa (Who were brought to the West Coast of Africa)initially come from Africa? That is a question which still begs for an answer. Some say they came from the so-called near east, some say other-wise, but what is clear is that historical documentation without a shout of a doubt show that many who were enslaved were enslaved in Southern Europe and Northern Africa - and were brought to West Africa to be transported to the Americas.
Posts: 951 | From: where rules end and freedom begins | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Mike per the constitution the census continue to count only 1/12, the Blacks in the U.S., like they did during slavery.
Clyde are you talking about The "Three-Fifths Compromise"?
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.
Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.
The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
As you can see that was a "political" Compromise. It had nothing to do with the actual census count.
But having say that, there is NO DOUBT that Blacks are severely UNDER-COUNTED in the U.S. - for obvious reasons.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ru2religious: You know I watch a whole bunch of scholars make arguments for African American, Afro-American, black, etc ... but what bothers me more about these arguments and the sides they come from is that most people fail to trace the literal steps back to Africa.
As most should know, most of the people that were taken from the West Coast of Africa were actually brought to the West Coast of Africa first. West Africa is where the ports of departure was from - but many of the people who were enslaved were actually from Southern Europe who didn't escape the Renaissance aka 'Rebirth' of Europe.
The Portuguese under the orders of Pope Nicholas V(1425) were authorized to capture and enslave indigenous North Africans who many fled from South Europe after the unifying of the Arabic Moors and European Christians sought to execute the Moors of Europe.
Now the question is - did this ancient Moors of Southern Europe and North Africa (Who were brought to the West Coast of Africa)initially come from Africa? That is a question which still begs for an answer. Some say they came from the so-called near east, some say other-wise, but what is clear is that historical documentation without a shout of a doubt show that many who were enslaved were enslaved in Southern Europe and Northern Africa - and were brought to West Africa to be transported to the Americas.
Ru2religious - This is a scenario that I have not considered, if you have any specific facts, please share them.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dum Diversas [English: 'Until different'] is a papal bull issued on 18 June 1452 by Pope Nicholas V, that is credited by some with "ushering in the West African slave trade."[1] It authorized Afonso V of Portugal to conquer Saracens and pagans and consign them to "perpetual slavery."[2] Pope Calixtus III reiterated the bull in 1456 with Etsi cuncti, renewed by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481 and Pope Leo X in 1514 with Precelse denotionis. The concept of the consignment of exclusive spheres of influence to certain nation states was extended to the Americas in 1493 by Pope Alexander VI with Inter caetera.
The Portuguese sought confirmation that they could enslave infidels in a crusade. In 1452 Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas to King Alfonso V of Portugal which included the following words: "we grant to you...full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ...to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery". In 1454 Pope Nicholas explicitly confirmed the rights granted to King Alfonso V in Dum Diversas in Romanus Pontifex by which he granted to Alfonso "...the rights of conquest and permissions previously granted not only to the territories already acquired but also those that might be acquired in the future".
We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit..
Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Obviously the Catholic church was just as criminal as any Mafia family. But interestingly it shows how religions mature. Modern Christianity is about 600 years older than Islam. Today Islam still condones many of the things that Christianity did 600 years ago. If all follows convention, by 2600, Islam will no longer call for killing persons who wish to leave the religion and other such things.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Dum Diversas [English: 'Until different'] is a papal bull issued on 18 June 1452 by Pope Nicholas V, that is credited by some with "ushering in the West African slave trade."[1] It authorized Afonso V of Portugal to conquer Saracens and pagans and consign them to "perpetual slavery."[2] Pope Calixtus III reiterated the bull in 1456 with Etsi cuncti, renewed by Pope Sixtus IV in 1481 and Pope Leo X in 1514 with Precelse denotionis. The concept of the consignment of exclusive spheres of influence to certain nation states was extended to the Americas in 1493 by Pope Alexander VI with Inter caetera.
The Portuguese sought confirmation that they could enslave infidels in a crusade. In 1452 Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas to King Alfonso V of Portugal which included the following words: "we grant to you...full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ...to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery". In 1454 Pope Nicholas explicitly confirmed the rights granted to King Alfonso V in Dum Diversas in Romanus Pontifex by which he granted to Alfonso "...the rights of conquest and permissions previously granted not only to the territories already acquired but also those that might be acquired in the future".
We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso – to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit..
posted
Ru2religious - I have found that telling racial lies is one of the tell-tale signs of garbage Albino history. Please note on page 458 of your link:
Eighth-century Latin sources from Spain were careful to distinguish between mauri and arabes." but before long the terms became synonymous, and ultimately, by the later Middle Ages, "Moor" had all but eclipsed "Arab" in vernacular usage. At roughly the same time a new ethnic wrinkle was added. Due to the growing percentage of sub-Saharan blacks among the slave population in Morocco and Granada, the category of "Moor" was stretched to accommodate "black Moors.
Once I see lies like that, I throw it in the trash.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
The Portuguese under the orders of Pope Nicholas V(1425) were authorized to capture and enslave indigenous North Africans who many fled from South Europe after the unifying of the Arabic Moors and European Christians sought to execute the Moors of Europe.
Portugal began the great European voyages of discovery (mid-15th century). As a result for the first time Europeans came into direct contact with black Africans. Portuguese traders brought blacks to Portugal for sale as slaves. Others were used as slaves on sugar plantations off the coast of Africa. The Portuguese also sold slves in Spain. This alerted the Spanish to the commercial possibilities. Spanish traders then began their own expeditions south along the coast of Africa. Thus Spanish interst in African slaves began well before they had American colonies and Caribbean sugar islands.The first extensive shipment of black Africans to make good the shortage of native slaves, what would later become known as the Transatlantic slave trade, was initiated at the request of Bishop Las Casas and authorised by Charles V in 1517. Pope Nicholas V issues the bull (papal decree) Dum Diversas scantioning the developing Portuguese pratice of reducing non-Christians to the condition of slavery (1452). The pope did not touch on the issue of race. Portuguese and Spanish competition in the African trade led to a rivalry that threatened conflict. As the Portuguese Pope Nicholas V to defuse the developing rivalry issued the bull Romanus Pontifex which granted the the Portuguese a perpetual monopoly in trade with Africa. (1454), Spanish traders, however, continued voyages along the African coast and among other goods brought back captured Africans as slaves. Ferdinand and Isabella complete the Reconquista by conquering the Moorish kingdom of Grenada (1492). The Moors areallowed to depart the city, taking their Christian slaves with them. The Spanish retain their Moorish slaves.
In 1444, the Portuguese engage in slave raiding along the Senegal river, Guinea Coast, and Congo. They would later establish ports, to transport African victims to their colonies. Some slaves were destined to Portugal.The First Atlantic system was the trade of enslaved Africans to, primarily, South American colonies of the Portuguese and Spanish empires; it accounted for only slightly more than 3% of all Atlantic slave trade. It started (on a significant scale) in about 1502 and lasted until 1580 when Portugal was temporarily united with Spain. In 1600, the population of Lisbon and Algarve was reported at 10%. Blacks began to organize themselves into confraternities for self-help and to continue customs and traditions from Africa. During Portuguese festivals, africans would wear their traditional clothing, reflective of their ancestral homelands. Every echeleon of Portuguese society owned slaves: clergy, aristocracy, and commoner. Slaves were expensive, and typically the aristocracy owned them. Only the government owned large numbers of slaves at one time. It was rare to have commoners owning slaves. While the Portuguese traded enslaved people themselves, the Spanish empire relied on the asiento system, awarding merchants (mostly from other countries) the license to trade enslaved people to their colonies. During the first Atlantic system most of these traders were Portuguese, giving them a near-monopoly during the era. Slaves were used for many purposes. The aristocracy used them as domestic servants. Some were hired out to perform duties for a fee. They were used for dangerous jobs, such as the hospitals, during epidemics.
Slaves could be set free. Some slaves bought their freedom via payments from their labor. Other slaves were set free by their masters. If a black woman birthed her owner's child, the child would typically be freed by the father. The depopulation of the Americas, and consequently the shortage of slaves,[that came about through diseases allegedly brought over by the Europeans, and the harsh treatment of the native populations, inspired increasing debate during the 16th century over the morality of slavery. La Casas later rejected all forms of slavery and became famous as the great protector of Indian rights. No Papal condemnation of Transatlantic slave trade was made at the time. Portugal and Spain were the only countries in Europe to allow slavery on European soil during the trans-Atlantic slave period. Blacks brought to Portugal during the trans-atlantic slave period, never completely mixed with the broader Portuguese population and completely vanish, as in Spain. Portugal had a continuous black population from the fifteenth century to present. Portugal during her imperial age was unique in having the largest black population in Europe, from the 1500s to the 1800s.
By the end of the 15th century, the Portuguese and Spanish had expelled the Moors from their countries. The fall of Grenada in 1492 forever ended Muslim rule in Iberia. Exhilarated by their achievement, the Iberians were then prepared to chase the Moors from Northern Africa as well. Due to this rivalry between the Europeans and the Moors, the Portuguese were accustomed to black slave labor. Each group enslaved prisoners of war. In 1500, there were thousands of Moorish slaves in Portugal; so the Portuguese slave trade with the West Africans was a continuation of earlier contact. The additional slave labor also helped to alleviate the hard pressed labor market.
Only slightly more than 3% of the enslaved people exported were traded between 1450 and 1600, 16% in the 17th century.
It is estimated that more than half of the slave trade took place during the 18th century, with the British, Portuguese and French being the main carriers of nine out of ten slaves abducted from Africa. The British were the biggest transporters of slaves across the Atlantic during the 18th century.
The 19th century saw a reduction of the slave trade, that accounted to 28.5% of the total Atlantic slave trade Posts: 42918 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Y haplogroups that are dominant in Europe are R and I. In the case of R, there is some R in Africa--especially in the Cameroon, Chad, and Guinea Bissau. As reported in the scientific literature European R is R1b1a2 while African R is R1b1c.
The predominant haplogroup among AAs is the West African E1b1a--at some 70%.
The predominant AA female MtDNA haplogroup is L1 or L2. Though there may be very minor L3 findings. This L is found at the rate of approximately 95%.
The extent of European R in the AA male population can be determined by testing whether they carry R1b1a2 or R1b1c.
Mike's fantasies could be easily dismissed by this simple litmus test approach.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I prefer the term Negro or Afro-American. There are presently too many immigrants from Africa, in the United States to call native born Blacks: African Americans.
The total black population of the U.S. is put at some 40-45 million. Blacks born outside the U.S. are less than 10% of that total. Blacks born in Africa are less than 4% of that total.
By contrast: Long resident--i.e. over 6 generations--Hispanic populations[ Arizona, New Mexico, California] have no objection being lumped with those persons from Mexico and other parts of Latin American who just crossed the Rio Grande.
The same for "Asian American"--which covers those born in East Asia and those who descend from the imported Chinese railway workers in the 1860s.
In both cases terms of appellation are often interchanged--i.e. "Latino" is often used instead of "Latino American" and "Asian" often used instead of "Asian American".
Another interesting observation is that longstanding China towns that dot the American landscape have not morphed into China-American towns or have Chinese restaurants morphed into Chinese-American restaurants.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: Mike per the constitution the census continue to count only 1/12, the Blacks in the U.S., like they did during slavery.
Clyde are you talking about The "Three-Fifths Compromise"?
The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise between Southern and Northern states reached during the Philadelphia convention of 1787 in which three-fifths of the enumerated population of slaves would be counted for representation purposes regarding both the distribution of taxes and the apportionment of the members of the United States House of Representatives. It was proposed by delegates James Wilson and Roger Sherman.
Delegates opposed to slavery generally wished to count only the free inhabitants of each state. Delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, generally wanted to count slaves in their actual numbers. Since slaves could not vote, slaveholders would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. The final compromise of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers reduced the power of the slave states relative to the original southern proposals, but increased it over the northern position.
The Three-Fifths Compromise is found in Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution:
As you can see that was a "political" Compromise. It had nothing to do with the actual census count.
But having say that, there is NO DOUBT that Blacks are severely UNDER-COUNTED in the U.S. - for obvious reasons.
Yes. They do this to make Blacks see themselves as a minority. By promoting Blacks as a minority Europeans continually beat over our heads that we are weak and powerless.
Although they maintain we are a minority, they spend their time trying to bring everyone they can from outside the U.S., to use as a buffer between them and us.
quote:Originally posted by lamin: The Y haplogroups that are dominant in Europe are R and I. In the case of R, there is some R in Africa--especially in the Cameroon, Chad, and Guinea Bissau. As reported in the scientific literature European R is R1b1a2 while African R is R1b1c.
The predominant haplogroup among AAs is the West African E1b1a--at some 70%.
The predominant AA female MtDNA haplogroup is L1 or L2. Though there may be very minor L3 findings. This L is found at the rate of approximately 95%.
The extent of European R in the AA male population can be determined by testing whether they carry R1b1a2 or R1b1c.
Mike's fantasies could be easily dismissed by this simple litmus test approach.
Lamin - As you have proven many times over, a European Albino in Africa is even stupider than the native Africans. You know, one of the tools that I use in my research, is an understanding of the current population as well as an understanding of the history of the place. Then I use COMMON sense to parse the data. What a lying fool you are, anyone who has ever been to the United States knows that every kind of Black person in the world is there, the Black diversity is almost total in some large cities. Yet a lying fool like you would claim that:
In human genetics, Haplogroup E-V38 is a human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. It is the phylogenetic term for the series of unique sequence variants on the human Y-chromosome. It is often found in African males and their descendants and is heritably passed in lineage from father to son. Geneticists study these variants in populations to find the evolutionary lineage to a common male human ancestor. It can also be referred to in phylogenetic nomenclature by names such as E1b1a (although the exact definition of phylogenetic names can vary over time).
E-V38 has two basal branches, E-M329 and E-M2, the former is almost exclusively found in Ethiopia, while the latter is the predominant lineage in Western Africa, Central Africa, Southern Africa, North Africa and the southern parts of Eastern Africa. E-M2 has several subclades, however many members are included in either E-L485 or E-U175.
I have to give credit where credit is due, you Albinos are resolute if nothing else. I have kicked the sh1t out of each one of you many times, but yet you all remain undaunted and undeterred, ever ready with the next lie. That is very impressive.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Am J Hum Genet. 2005 October; 77(4): 676–680. Published online 2005 August 11.
PMCID: PMC1275617
Charting the Ancestry of African Americans
Antonio Salas,1 Ángel Carracedo,1 Martin Richards,2 and Vincent Macaulay
The Atlantic slave trade promoted by West European empires (15th–19th centuries) forcibly moved at least 11 million people from Africa, including about one-third from west-central Africa, to European and American destinations. The mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) genome has retained an imprint of this process, but previous analyses lacked west-central African data. Here, we make use of an African database of 4,860 mtDNAs, which include 948 mtDNA sequences from west-central Africa and a further 154 from the southwest, and compare these for the first time with a publicly available database of 1,148 African Americans from the United States that contains 1,053 mtDNAs of sub-Saharan ancestry. We show that >55% of the U.S. lineages have a West African ancestry, with <41% coming from west-central or southwestern Africa. These results are remarkably similar to the most up-to-date analyses of the historical record.
The number of people of recent African ancestry living in the Americas is comparable to that in Africa itself (obviously White boys on Crack), largely because of the forced mass migrations of the Atlantic slave trade during the 15th–19th centuries.
BTW - Studies that only deal with Mt-dna are worthless, don't waste your time.
posted
Lamin is right Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican may not like each other but they dont have any problem being classify as Latino or Hispanic.Chinese, Japanese, Korean,Indian may not like each other but they dont have any problem being classify as Asian.I dont see why some black in America doesnt like to be classify as African American.It doesnt matter if African American, African, Afro carribean and Afro Latino doesnt like each other African American is a fair classification.
The Out of Africa theory show that all black people in the world came out of Africa at different period of history.Blacck European and black West Asian came from Africa in prehistoric and ancient time.
Clyde is right black people are undercounted in the USA and the racist system use immigrant from Latin America(were black people are at the bottom of society) as a buffer zone.I remember Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA treaty and open the border with Mexico allowing 12 milion of illegal Mexicans to get in the USA.In the year between 2001 and 2006 all the USA media were celebrating how Latino/Hispanic surpassed African American as the largest minority.Minority is one of the subtle racist word use by white people.Immigration from black country is kept at a minimum.The white system use rich black Athletes, rich black entertainers and rich politicians to hide their racism against the black masses.
I think Africa and Irak are the real Holy Land because of the Nile Valley civilisations, the Mountain of the Moon, the Great Lakes Region and the Mesopotamian civilisations
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic