posted
One of his 100 amazing facts about NTRs was
quote: approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade. Incredibly, most of the 42 million members of the African-American community descend from this tiny group of less than half a million Africans.
450,000 to 42 million. Nice number BTW.
God I love messing with people who swear by mainstream his story.
I like how the bold word tells us the truth. Incredible facts lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Narmerthoth: Amazing, but hardly surprising!
I guess he was told to keep those numbers below that of the number of Jews who died during WWII to lessen the horror of the Trans-Atlantic Holocaust.
What references did he use to estimate the number?
DuBois noted that 100 million Africans were stolen from Africa. Thew 10 million total is a joke.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny thing is the 450,000 is the most credible number cited. I would love to ask him if most of the 42 million are descendants from less than half a million slaves where did the remaining 49.99% come from.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: The funny thing is the 450,000 is the most credible number cited. I would love to ask him if most of the 42 million are descendants from less than half a million slaves where did the remaining 49.99% come from.
Mike commented on this months ago. As whites took the lands of Black Native Americans in the Southeast they were either enslaved or made "free colored" people. Mike recognized how the free Black populations increased in many states where there were no records of manumission numbering the new "free colored" people. We have to assume that the new "colored" people were Black Native Americans.
Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: The funny thing is the 450,000 is the most credible number cited. I would love to ask him if most of the 42 million are descendants from less than half a million slaves where did the remaining 49.99% come from.
Mike commented on this months ago. As whites took the lands of Black Native Americans in the Southeast they were either enslaved or made "free colored" people. Mike recognized how the free Black populations increased in many states where there were no records of manumission numbering the new "free colored" people. We have to assume that the new "colored" people were Black Native Americans.
I get it but then again I'm not insane. That's my point about how you have to be insane. If you can only find record of 450K slaves then how can you then conclude that most of the modern population are descendants from slaves. It just shows you that Skip and many others are so programmed to accept mainstream history that they will gloss over the incredible without presenting an alternative hypothesis.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here are some of the number taken from DuBois and other sources, but the total out of African does not seem to be DuBois's, being a magnitude less. So many slaves were shipped to Portugal that they almost took over the country. Unfortunately, it provides no numbers for teh 1700s.
1800 US census data shows over 100,000 free blacks, and that doesn't include the many free Moors who aren't included in Census data.
According to historic docs, many American ships were being hi-jacked by Jew controlled pirates, which is why America signed the treaty with Moroccan moors to protect those ships from being pirated. Thus, the treaty guaranteed black Moors the same rights and freedoms as whites.
If you would rather just see the numbers and the evidence of why less that 1/2 million slaves could "NOT" grow to 40+ million go to this link - middle of page.
posted
You can find all sorts of horrific true examples of how slaves were treated in the United States, including beatings, health issues due to conditions. However on the whole conditions were a lot better than in the Caribbean and there were long periods in where slave birth rates actually greatly exceeded the European birth rates. Again, true fact > there were long periods in where slave birth rates actually greatly exceeded the European birth rates. The European Americans realized that it made more economic sense to have their slave workers survive and reproduce new workers at a higher rate than the slaves in the Indies who had high mortaliity rates -and not have to constantly have the expense to employ ships to import slaves across the sea frorm Africa and the nature of the work was different than in the Carib and the ratios of the sexes was at optimum for high birth rates
Slavery in the US was distinctive in the near balance of the sexes and the ability of the slave population to increase its numbers by natural reproduction.
Unlike any other slave society, the U.S. had a high and sustained natural increase in the slave population for a more than a century and a half.
In 1860, 89 percent of the nation's African Americans were slaves; blacks formed 13 percent of the country's population and 33 percent of the South's population.
In 1860, less than 10 percent of the slave population was over 50 and only 3.5 percent was over 60.
The average age of first birth for slave women was around 20. Child spacing averaged about 2 years.
THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN BORN TO A SLAVE WOMAN WAS 9.2 - TWICE AS MANY AS IN THE WEST INDIES
The average number of children born to a slave woman was 9.2--twice as many in the West Indies.
Most slaves lived in nuclear households consisting of two parents and children: 64 percent nuclear; 21 percent single parents; 15 percent non-family.
Mother-headed families were 50 percent more frequent on plantations with 15 or fewer slaves than on large ones. Smaller units also had a disproportionately large share of families in which the father and mother lived on different plantations for most of the week.
Average number of persons per household was 6.
Average age of women at birth of their first child was about 21.
How did the U.S. slave population increase nearly fourfold between 1810 and 1860, given the demise of the trans-Atlantic trade? They enjoyed an exceptional rate of natural increase. Unlike elsewhere in the New World, the South did not require constant infusions of immigrant slaves to keep its slave population intact. In fact, by 1825, 36 percent of the slaves in the Western hemisphere lived in the U.S. This was partly due to higher birth rates, which were in turn due to a more equal ratio of female to male slaves in the U.S. relative to other parts of the Americas. Lower mortality rates also figured prominently. Climate was one cause; crops were another. U.S. slaves planted and harvested first tobacco and then, after Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton. This work was relatively less grueling than the tasks on the sugar plantations of the West Indies and in the mines and fields of South America. Southern slaves worked in industry, did domestic work, and grew a variety of other food crops as well, mostly under less abusive conditions than their counterparts elsewhere. For example, the South grew half to three-quarters of the corn crop harvested between 1840 and 1860.
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: rapid natural increase ..... ???
sounds fishy .....
I have news for you, sometimes in human history populations have rapid increases relative to average increases
So before you say "sounds fishy" do some of your research instead of eating everything spinmeister Mike tries to feed you
Feel good history is not real history
Here's a fact:
THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN BORN TO A SLAVE WOMAN WAS 9.2 -
Now go and check to see if it is verified Then after you find out do the math, it's called geometric incease Each of those 9 kids has their own children and so on -even after taking off some for infnat mortality
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
you will find that Mike will only talk about slave mortality rate and not birth rate and he will take things out of context in time period. He will selectively extract data only form certain time periods to try to spin things where he wants
What he's trying to sell you is that you are actually a European noble
because thats a more pleasant idea than being the descendant of a slave
In other words history is something you revise to make you feel good
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Narmerthoth: Amazing, but hardly surprising!
I guess he was told to keep those numbers below that of the number of Jews who died during WWII to lessen the horror of the Trans-Atlantic Holocaust.
What references did he use to estimate the number?
DuBois noted that 100 million Africans were stolen from Africa. The 10 million total is a joke.
When DuBois said 100 Million he was talling about the whole Trans Atlantic slave trade, all the destination countries not just the U.S.
Clyde, Henry Louis Gates said there were approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade.
So given that most slaves were imported into the Caribbean/West Indies, especially Brazil rather than to the United States what is your minimum estimate of the amount of Africans who arrived in the United States specifically over the course of the slave trade?
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
If you would rather just see the numbers and the evidence of why less that 1/2 million slaves could "NOT" grow to 40+ million go to this link - middle of page.
Exactly African Americans have the greatest population growth in the history of the planet. Yes the same people whose neighborhoods are defined by an abundance of abortion clinics while native Americans suffer the greatest genocide in the history of the planet.
This is why I tell everyone that the exaggeration of the slave trade is one of the greatest lies in history. All you have to do is look at mainstream history on face value. It's like xyyman says they are less likely to lie about data.
I really would like to ask Skip "Black Pharaoh" Gates about the 49.9% since he said most. Matter of fact I might tweet the question. How can I phrase it in 140 characters?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: One of his 100 amazing facts about NTRs was
quote: approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade. Incredibly, most of the 42 million members of the African-American community descend from this tiny group of less than half a million Africans.
450,000 to 42 million. Nice number BTW.
God I love messing with people who swear by mainstream his story.
I like how the bold word tells us the truth. Incredible facts lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
This is why I tell everyone that the exaggeration of the slave trade is one of the greatest lies in history. All you have to do is look at mainstream history on face value. It's like xyyman says they are less likely to lie about data.
I really would like to ask Skip "Black Pharaoh" Gates about the 49.9% since he said most. Matter of fact I might tweet the question. How can I phrase it in 140 characters?
What you are saying makes no sense
If Henry Louis Gates figure of African slaves in the United States is too low at 450,000 to grow into 42 million people that means that that amount 450,000 is grossly underestimated not exaggerted !!!
and Clyde's comments were to that effect
use your brain
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: One of his 100 amazing facts about NTRs was
quote: approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade. Incredibly, most of the 42 million members of the African-American community descend from this tiny group of less than half a million Africans.
450,000 to 42 million. Nice number BTW.
God I love messing with people who swear by mainstream his story.
I like how the bold word tells us the truth. Incredible facts lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
This is why I tell everyone that the exaggeration of the slave trade is one of the greatest lies in history. All you have to do is look at mainstream history on face value. It's like xyyman says they are less likely to lie about data.
I really would like to ask Skip "Black Pharaoh" Gates about the 49.9% since he said most. Matter of fact I might tweet the question. How can I phrase it in 140 characters?
What you are saying makes no sense
If Henry Louis Gates figure of African slaves in the United States is too low at 450,000 to grow into 42 million people that means that that amount 450,000 is grossly underestimated not exaggerted !!!
and Clyde's comments were to that effect
use your brain
You are god damn right it doesn't make sense. Doesnt stop mainstream history and Skippy from parroting it.
I have a question how do you move 100 million people across the ocean?
Where are all of these ships?
Do you think such a contraption would survive Myth Busters? Would that cross the Atlantic?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
posted
As you will recall, the thread is about how less than 1/2 million African slaves could turn into the current Black population of over 42 million.
Of course it couldn't, but it is in the Albinos interest to have you believe that it can, so you won't ask about what really happened.
To help you think logically consider this:
How Many Children Does It Take to Replace Their Parents? Variation in Replacement Fertility as an Indicator of Child Survival and Gender Status Prepared for Population Association of American 2006 Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, California, March 30-April 1, 2006
Abstract Replacement fertility is a key demographic concept often misconstrued as a constant 2.1 children per woman. Actually it varies by population and over time, from as low as 2.06 children per woman to well over 3. High replacement fertility mostly reflects low survival of female infants (i.e. future childbearers) to their own reproductive age. High sex ratios at birth can also raise replacement fertility values somewhat.
Replacement fertility has long been a basic concept in demography. In 1821, the British writer Piercy Ravenstone used American census data to compute that on average four children per family were needed at that time to maintain a stationary U.S. population, based on his belief that 11 out of every 20 females born survived to middle age and that one of these 11 women remained single (Hutchinson, 1967).
The number computed by Mr. Ravenstone was for a healthy well-fed White family with adaquit medical care. Logically, one would assume that for ill-fed, overworked, high infant mortality Slaves, with no medical attention; the number would be much higher, perhaps 6 or 7 children would need to be born - JUST TO MAINTAIN THEIR POPULATION AT CURRENT LEVELS.
posted
Childhood and Transatlantic Slavery Steven Mintz, Columbia University
Infant and child mortality rates were twice as high among slave children as among southern white children. A major contributor to the high infant and child death rate was chronic undernourishment. Slaveowners showed surprisingly little concern for slave mothers' health or diet during pregnancy, providing pregnant women with no extra rations and employing them in intensive field work even in the last week before they gave birth.
Birth weights and infant mortality among American slaves Author: Steckel RH Source: Explorations in Economic History. 1986 Apr; 23(2):173-98. Abstract:
This study is concerned with the ongoing debate regarding the health and mortality of slaves that started with the publication of "Time on the Cross". The author argues that living standards of slave children in the United States were poor. Using data from the records of the coastal trade in slaves from the early nineteenth century, it is shown that newborns of slaves weighed on average less than 5.5 pounds and that the infant mortality rate was around 30 to 40 percent. Factors affecting this situation are analyzed, and the implications for the estimation of slave fertility and of the underenumeration of vital events and infant mortality in other populations are considered.
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: One of his 100 amazing facts about NTRs was
quote: approximately 450,000 Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade. Incredibly, most of the 42 million members of the African-American community descend from this tiny group of less than half a million Africans.
450,000 to 42 million. Nice number BTW.
God I love messing with people who swear by mainstream his story.
I like how the bold word tells us the truth. Incredible facts lolzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
This is why I tell everyone that the exaggeration of the slave trade is one of the greatest lies in history. All you have to do is look at mainstream history on face value. It's like xyyman says they are less likely to lie about data.
I really would like to ask Skip "Black Pharaoh" Gates about the 49.9% since he said most. Matter of fact I might tweet the question. How can I phrase it in 140 characters?
What you are saying makes no sense
If Henry Louis Gates figure of African slaves in the United States is too low at 450,000 to grow into 42 million people that means that that amount 450,000 is grossly underestimated not exaggerted !!!
and Clyde's comments were to that effect
use your brain
You are god damn right it doesn't make sense. Doesnt stop mainstream history and Skippy from parroting it.
I have a question how do you move 100 million people across the ocean?
Where are all of these ships?
Do you think such a contraption would survive Myth Busters? Would that cross the Atlantic?
It is true and did happen and it has been reported by a French scholar somewhere in the nineteenth century that about 100 million Africans were involved in the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.
One needs to understand that most of the people, in cargo didn't survive. More than half.
I read a book on slavery and deportations, where it stated that the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade as a business of 24/7, of several portals. With each portal leaving at least two ships each day. This happened for hundreds of years. 300-400 years. If I recall correctly each ship had about 250 slaves.
When you do the calculations we get close to what the French scholar stated.
Another question could be, what happened to all those early ship anyway?
At the present world population growth rate of 1.7% per year, how long will it take to double the world's population? This equation shows that it will take about 41 years to double the world's population.
In 2013, the population of African Americans including those of more than one race was estimated at 45 million, making up 15.2% of the total U.S. population.
Those who identified only as African American made up 13.2% of the U.S. population-over 41.7 million people.
The US Census BureauExternal Web Site Icon projects that by the year 2060 there will be 74.5 million African Americans including those of more than one race in the United States, making up 17.9% of the total U.S. population.
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: It is true and did happen and it has been reported by a French scholar somewhere in the nineteenth century that about 100 million Africans were involved in the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.
Stick to the topic as indicated in the first post, the number of African Slaves imported into the United States
-not the larger number of all destination countries
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Troll Patrol # Ish Gebor: It is true and did happen and it has been reported by a French scholar somewhere in the nineteenth century that about 100 million Africans were involved in the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade.
Stick to the topic as indicated in the first post, the number of African Slaves imported into the United States
-not the larger number of all destination countries
The topic is just that. If the likeliness is that the overall number was larger, it means that the number of slaves into the U.S. is also very likely.
So Fourty2Tribes question was answered.
The Angolan region of west-central Africa made up slightly more than half of all Africans sent to the Americas and a quarter of imports to British North America.Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
Emory calculates that between 1628 and 1866 - 365,977 African slaves were imported to North America. (Between 1808 and 1866 it was illegal).
Most of the founders of Emory University in Atlata were slave owners and supporters of slavery
Yet dumb Mike doesn't think these "lying albinos" estimate could be a grossly underestimated
Then per birth rates of African slaves in America being rapid Mike will then ignore what they say
So Mike's ears hear only what they want to hear
and the groupies follow
What he said was, that during the illegal period slaves were still imported.
We know of this because pirate-ships were still active. Not all slaves were registered.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Troll Patrol you don't understand Fourty2Tribes position or Mike's
Your position is that the number of Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade is larger than 450,000
Fourty2Tribes position and Mike's position is that the number of Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade is 450,000 OR LESS
Their position is that most black people in America did not come from recent African ancestors They believe that the ancestors of most blacks in America came directly from European blacks who had been living in Europe for 40,000 years and were Blacks Native Americans who had already been living in America for thousands of years, not recmt African slaves of the Europeans
So don't be a sucka, your position is opposite to theirs
READ >
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
This is why I tell everyone that the exaggeration of the slave trade is one of the greatest lies in history.
^^^ Troll Patrol what this means is that he thinks is 450,000 is an OVER ESTIMATE of the number of African slaves
The difference is I realize the direction that Mike is leading his groupies in but you don't
Don't believe me, ask them
They are historical revisionists who deny the extent of the Maafa
The motive is forget the past, we don't want to be idnetified as the descendants as slaves, just change the story to something less degrading I sympathize with the motive but not the changing history part
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
I have a question how do you move 100 million people across the ocean?
Where are all of these ships?
Do you think such a contraption would survive Myth Busters? Would that cross the Atlantic?
^^^ Troll Patrol wake up Do you understand the intent of Fourty2Tribes question here? He is saying that the idea that millions of Africans were transported in slave ships sounds silly to him. He's saying it's a myth and the the T.V. show Myth Busters could debunk the idea
So again, wake up, you are not on that same wavelength (I hope)
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
I don't have Dubois's "The World and Africa" with me right now but in that text--if memory serves, he states that from point of captivity--wars, kidnappings, raids, etc--to point of arrival, i.e. after the ships docked in the Americas the survival rate was only approximately 15-20%. So if 100 million were initially captives over the 300 years of the trade and only 15-20% survived to touch ground in the Americas then the final figure approximately 15 million does make sense.
The marches to the coast plus the deaths on board ship did significantly reduce initial numbers.
One should also not that the simple arithmetic of the doubling of some number(called the rule of 72) is based on 72 divided by the initial net percentage growth rate. Example: how long will it take for 100 to double at an initial 10% growth rate. Answer: Just divide 100 by 10 to get 10 years.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I must also add that the larger the % growth rate the quicker the doubling time.
So the issue is what would have been the annual percentage growth for 500,000 persons to increase to 40 million over the non-importing time--assuming that the non-importing time period is correct?
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oops, error above re the "rule of 72". The number 72 must figure in the answer meaning that the time for 100 to double at 10% annual growth rate is 72/10 = 7.2 years.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Well at least you all are thinking about it.
I am currently working on a complete accounting of all the variables, which will give a definitive conclusion.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even though I have some doubts let's just assume Troll Patrol is right. Two ships a day from three locations brought 100 million people to the Americas in 350 years.
The fact that we can only account for half a million in North America with totally different methodology should lead back to questioning the first assumption. It does not substantiate it. If anything it leads you to question it.
The journey was two months on average. 4 month round trip. How many boats would that take? It takes 4 months before you can reuse the same boat. That's six boats a day for four months. You need 720 different boats to complete one cycle assuming you make it and don't have to dock for repairs. You are already fighting wars in America and in Africa. You are going to lose half your cargo. You already have white slaves, you already have native slaves. This screams exaggeration.
Again I ask is this a transatlantic vessel or a pan-american vessel? Be honest. Do you think this passes Myth Busters? My money is that this is a Jamaica to New York boat. It's not an Angola to Brazil boat. Two months of provisions for that many people?
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Even though I have some doubts let's just assume Troll Patrol is right. Two ships a day from three locations brought 100 million people to the Americas in 350 years.
The fact that we can only account for half a million in North America with totally different methodology should lead back to questioning the first assumption. It does not substantiate it. If anything it leads you to question it.
That is correct, 100 Million is too high and a neat number like that should be suspect, Dubois is not right all of the time, despite what Clyde thinks.
This whole thread doesn't make sense, you criticize Henry Louis Gates numbers and Clyde, Troll Patrol and Narmertot come around saying he greatly underestimated the number
Little did they know you meant that Gates' number was too high at half a million not too low. And even with Gates lower figure you call it "surreal inansity" and to this you say:
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: This is why I tell everyone that the exaggeration of the slave trade is one of the greatest lies in history.
^^^ So you, Mike and maybe Habsburg are in this boat
not Troll, Narmertot and Clyde
___________________
So you use rhetorical spins in one instance about a a half million you question, and then reversing gears you spin from the other direction 100 million that is too high is also questionable
But let's be consistent and stop playing these games and use your same source Henry Lewis Gates and his source is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson.
The most comprehensive analysis of shipping records over the course of the slave trade is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson. (While the editors are careful to say that all of their figures are estimates, I believe that they are the best estimates that we have, the proverbial “gold standard” in the field of the study of the slave trade.) Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.
And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That’s right: a tiny percentage.
Now deal with a more realistic numbers "12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage"
^^^ now start making estimates about shipping 12.5 to low, even if you double it to 25 million that is only one quarter of the old estimate of 100 million
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
Again I ask is this a transatlantic vessel or a pan-american vessel? Be honest. Do you think this passes Myth Busters? My money is that this is a Jamaica to New York boat. It's not an Angola to Brazil boat. Two months of provisions for that many people? [/QB]
Why do you keep showing the slave quarters on a ship and ask " Do you think this passes Myth Busters?" Why is it a proablem?
Do you have any reason for questioning it or are you in such a deep state of denial -are you so not wanting to be African -are you so desiring to be Native American or Native European
that for some reason this illustation of the slave stowage in a ship you cannot digest?
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
My money is that this is a Jamaica to New York boat.
what the hell is this supposed to mean? Africans in Jamaica? A "pan-american vessel? " doing what ? shipping African slaves from the Caribbean to the U.S.? Or were these Jamaican nobles on vaction to America?
That is correct, 100 Million is too high and a neat number like that should be suspect, Dubois is not right all of the time, despite what Clyde thinks.
It's not that the number is too neat, it's just difficult to come by. Even with all of the fallen nations and wars it's incredible for Africa to produce that many people that they would be willing to sell which would suggest that it would involve more raiding and trading which is costly.
quote: This whole thread doesn't make sense, you criticize Henry Louis Gates numbers and Clyde, Troll Patrol and Narmertot come around saying he greatly underestimated the number
Little did they know you meant that Gates' number was too high at half a million not too low. And even with Gates lower figure you call it "surreal inansity" and to this you say:
I'm not criticizing Gate's numbers I'm criticizing the fact that he adheres to the half a million number as the bulk of African American ancestry. That to me is insane.
If I honestly believed that only .5 million slaves were brought to America I would at least explore the notion that most African Americans are not descendants of such a small population. I think it's insane for people especially African Americans to not question and examine anything that stands out like that especially when Moorish historians have a completely different history that is consistent with the data.
quote:^^^ So you, Mike and maybe Habsburg are in this boat
not Troll, Narmertot and Clyde
I'm open to the possibility but I'm also open to the possibility that it's impossible. Remember we arent just talking about 100 million people we are talking about 200+ million people before a holocaust reduced them to 100 million.
quote: So you use rhetorical spins in one instance about a a half million you question, and then reversing gears you spin from the other direction 100 million that is too high is also questionable
But let's be consistent and stop playing these games and use your same source Henry Lewis Gates and his source is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson.
Again the insanity isn't his numbers. His numbers are more feasible than the 100+ million holocaust.
The most comprehensive analysis of shipping records over the course of the slave trade is the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, edited by professors David Eltis and David Richardson. (While the editors are careful to say that all of their figures are estimates, I believe that they are the best estimates that we have, the proverbial “gold standard” in the field of the study of the slave trade.) Between 1525 and 1866, in the entire history of the slave trade to the New World, according to the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database, 12.5 million Africans were shipped to the New World. 10.7 million survived the dreaded Middle Passage, disembarking in North America, the Caribbean and South America.
And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That’s right: a tiny percentage.
Why do you keep showing the slave quarters on a ship and ask " Do you think this passes Myth Busters?" Why is it a proablem?
Do you have any reason for questioning it or are you in such a deep state of denial -are you so not wanting to be African -are you so desiring to be Native American or Native European
that for some reason this illustation of the slave stowage in a ship you cannot digest?
It's not a matter of what I wan't to be it's a matter of knowing what African Americans really are. I personally love Africa but I have seen first hand how history is falsified and how culturally European African Americans really are. I also find it totally incredible that the native population would decrease by as much as 90% while a population of .5 million experiences the fastest population growth in the history of the world.
To make this work I can't live in absolutes or follow historical doctrine. Thus I personally believe that African Americans are all of the above. They are Europeans, Africans and Americans. That is where the evidence takes me and frankly if Skip is looking at .5 million slaves that is where the evidence is aslo taking him. His tone defenses to that fact is what I call a surreal insanity.
quote:what the hell is this supposed to mean? Africans in Jamaica? A "pan-american vessel? " doing what ? shipping African slaves from the Caribbean to the U.S.? Or were these Jamaican nobles on vaction to America?
^^^^ I can't get through this without crying Yes it is difficult to digest,
but we must not forget
You know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm saying that those sardine slave ships are not transatlantic ships.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: You know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm saying that those sardine slave ships are not transatlantic ships.
I know what you're saying but I have no idea why you think that and I don't think anybody else in this thread know what you think that
If they are not slave ships what are they? and why would they not be slave ships?
You can't expect people to understand you if you don't explain
Posts: 42940 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
They are schematics to be sure. They might even be actual slave ships but they were capable of two month trips. Cuba to to Pennsylvania sure. Angola to Brazil? Label me a skeptic.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
The voyage from Africa to the Caribbean could take everything from a month to more than 150 days.
The passage was called the Middle Passage because it was a part of a triangular trade which began and ended in Europe.
We know a lot of people died on those ships also and some thrown overboard
Why do you make a claim that a ship like this was incapable of making a 150 day voyage and present no evidence that a ship like this could not make a 150 day voyage? -and that is the high end of the range that begins with only one month I mean what the hell do you know about ocean ships? Have you read anything on it?
On many of the slave ships the white crew members were not threated much better than the slaves. During the 18th century the death rate among the white crew was actually higher than the death rate among the slaves. The reason for this was that, even though the slave traders had learned how to reduce mortality among the slaves by avoiding overcrowding and improving sanitation, they did not have a cure for or the knowledge to avid spread of malaria and yellow fever among the sailors. Because many of the sailors had been forced into service on the slave ships they were in no position to complain about poor sanitation, bad food and ill-treatment, and the voyage on the slave ships often became their last.
Estimate death rate It is difficult to estimate the exact number of slaves who lost their lives on the journey from Africa to America. This is because few records were kept of those who died during the voyage and sometimes the captain could order that slaves should be thrown overboard, and these slaves would never be missed. The estimated death rate was about 32 per cent, however this rate did vary greatly, and some historians dear to say that nearly as many slaves died on the course of the Middle Passage as made it to the Caribbean's. Occasionally the entire cargo of slaves died of diseases or as a result of shortage of food and water, but this rarely happened.
Varying mortality rate Generally there were two factors which affected the mortality rate; the length of the voyage and the food the slaves were given. Slaves from Senegambia and Angola were usually healthiest as they came by short routes on which the winds were fairly predictable. The voyage from Guniea Coast, however, was much longer and the winds were much more unpredictable. The slave ships always ran the risk of passing through the calms with very little wind, which could possibly delay the journey by many days, and which again would give shortage of food and water.
Also the slaves` diet had an effect on their mortality rate. In the 18th century it was commonly believed that the slaves who were fed on maize had a very low mortality rate and that slaves fed on rice were fairly health. However, slaves fed on yams, had a higher mortality rate than those fed on maize and rice.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Troll Patrol you don't understand Fourty2Tribes position or Mike's
Your position is that the number of Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade is larger than 450,000
Fourty2Tribes position and Mike's position is that the number of Africans who arrived in the United States over the course of the slave trade is 450,000 OR LESS
Their position is that most black people in America did not come from recent African ancestors They believe that the ancestors of most blacks in America came directly from European blacks who had been living in Europe for 40,000 years and were Blacks Native Americans who had already been living in America for thousands of years, not recmt African slaves of the Europeans
So don't be a sucka, your position is opposite to theirs
READ >
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
This is why I tell everyone that the exaggeration of the slave trade is one of the greatest lies in history.
^^^ Troll Patrol what this means is that he thinks is 450,000 is an OVER ESTIMATE of the number of African slaves
The difference is I realize the direction that Mike is leading his groupies in but you don't
Don't believe me, ask them
They are historical revisionists who deny the extent of the Maafa
The motive is forget the past, we don't want to be idnetified as the descendants as slaves, just change the story to something less degrading I sympathize with the motive but not the changing history part
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes:
I have a question how do you move 100 million people across the ocean?
Where are all of these ships?
Do you think such a contraption would survive Myth Busters? Would that cross the Atlantic?
^^^ Troll Patrol wake up Do you understand the intent of Fourty2Tribes question here? He is saying that the idea that millions of Africans were transported in slave ships sounds silly to him. He's saying it's a myth and the the T.V. show Myth Busters could debunk the idea
So again, wake up, you are not on that same wavelength (I hope)
Thus, I have explained that it's not a myth. Exactly my post and purpose. It's you who doesn't understand.
I suggest you go and reread that post.
The thing is that African Americans are least likely to have connections to their African roots. Whereas other (African descent) populations did keep part of their root, to more or lesser degree.
"have you forgotten that once we were brought here, we were robbed of our name, robbed of our language. We lost our religion, our culture, our god...and many of us, by the way we act, we even lost our minds" --Khalid Abdul Muhammad (Kean College monologue.)
quote: One of the biggest cases in the history of the Atlantic Slave trade brought out the issues of carelessness and selfish acts. The story of the slave ship Zong gives a remarkable account of how slaves were being murdered ...
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: Even though I have some doubts let's just assume Troll Patrol is right. Two ships a day from three locations brought 100 million people to the Americas in 350 years.
The fact that we can only account for half a million in North America with totally different methodology should lead back to questioning the first assumption. It does not substantiate it. If anything it leads you to question it.
The journey was two months on average. 4 month round trip. How many boats would that take? It takes 4 months before you can reuse the same boat. That's six boats a day for four months. You need 720 different boats to complete one cycle assuming you make it and don't have to dock for repairs. You are already fighting wars in America and in Africa. You are going to lose half your cargo. You already have white slaves, you already have native slaves. This screams exaggeration.
Again I ask is this a transatlantic vessel or a pan-american vessel? Be honest. Do you think this passes Myth Busters? My money is that this is a Jamaica to New York boat. It's not an Angola to Brazil boat. Two months of provisions for that many people?
Different western powers / governments were involved. Also pirate ships were active.
Most people as cargo did not survive. Only a small portion made it over.
This is what they tell us, as "legal slave portals", meaning supported by the western governments.
Posts: 22244 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scientists solve the mystery of the shipwreck found under the World Trade Center: Analysis of tree rings finds ship was built in 1773 in Philadelphia
Ship was found 22 feet (6.7 meters) below today's street level Team analysed tree rings on the wooden ship
Found the boat came from wood cut in Philadeplhia in 1773 Made from the same kind of white oak trees used to build parts of Independence Hall, where the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution were signed
(CNN)Archaeologists and divers from across continents believe they have struck history gold, confirming the discovery of a sunken slave ship.
The Sao Jose-Paquete de Africa, a Portuguese slave ship, sank off Cape Town on its way from Mozambique to Brazil in 1794, while carrying more than 500 slaves. The ship's crew and almost half of those enslaved drowned in the violent waves. It is believed that the surviving slaves were resold in the Western Cape.
Quest for the sunken slave ship which claimed 664 lives Experts believe they are close to locating the final resting place of a slave ship which sank in what has been described as the biggest single tragedy of the Atlantic slave trade
The sinking of the Dutch slave ship Leusden may have been the worst catastrophe of its kind in the Atlantic slave trade. Near the coast of Suriname 680 Africans were trapped in the hull and drowened as a result.
quote: The transatlantic slave trade lay at the centre of a complex global commercial system. It was also the cause of an occasion for international rivalries and tensions on three continents. Europeans fought each other for a share of the trade to and from Africa. They clashed over possessions in the Americas that required slave labour. And they even disputed each other's presence on the high seas. That slaves and the slave trade lay at the heart of such friction, over many centuries, is itself proof of the value Europeans attached to slavery itself.
posted
So they tried to take a few of those death traps across the ocean and they sank.
The death rate of slavers were greater than slaves?
Slavers were practically forced. But hey that's millions of dollars worth of people?
Slaves would drown in their own feces. To prevent that you would have to bring up small groups each day. Ok it's starting to seem feasible but then why do you have pics like these?
Notice the boat had to support the weight of cannons and ammo.
Are these not two types of slave ships? One with less people, less provisions and less weight for a longer journey and another with more people and more weight for a shorter journey else you might sink.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
about NTRs was 
Printer-friendly view of this topic