posted
The original people of the Americas are the Black Paleoamericans; these are the first Human inhabitants of the Hemisphere. Evidences of their habitation is found with 9,600 year-old Kennewick man in Washington State U.S., 11,500 year-old Luzia in Brazil, and 12,000 year-old Naia in Mexico. These people are believed to have come from Australia and the Pacific Islands as early as 50,000 years ago: as indicated by human remains and hearths at Pedra Furada in Brazil. Next into the American Hemisphere were the “Clovis culture” migrants from Asia, circa 12,000 years ago. At this time Asia was inhabited by Blacks of Negroid phenotype and Mongol phenotype, so it can be assumed that Asian Blacks of both kinds crossed over to the Americas at this time. Racially, a complicating factor is Asia’s Albinos (Caucasian and Mongol phenotype): we know that the Chinese people have steadily become lighter (and more Caucasian phenotype) over just the last few millennia, so that today, they cannot even be called the “Yellow” race: today there is a definite “Pink” tinge to the Chinese people.
Not surprisingly, picture and ceramic artifacts, as well as European’s written descriptions of first contacts, tell us that Pre-Columbian North America: Mexico, the United States, and Canada, was inhabited by Black Indians and “Dark Brown” Indians, who inspired the term “Red Man”: (as dark brown people become “Red hued” after extended time in the Sun). But the fact of Asia’s Albinos makes it impossible to determine if Americas “light skinned and even White looking” Indians of the “Early European period” are descendants of the original Clovis people, or the result of “Admixture” with Europeans.
posted
Likewise, it is impossible to determine the linage of North Americas Black Indians, their phenotype is both Straight haired and Curly haired. But Black Asians are both Straight haired and Curly haired: as Black Australians are Straight haired, and Black Tasmanians were Curly haired, therefore no conclusion can be drawn.
Whichever the case, they both suffered the same fate: When the Albino Europeans came, the Mongol Americans whom the Black Americans had hegemony over, allied themselves with the Albino Europeans, and brought down the Black Empires in the Americas. For Mexico, the Albinos used to tell the story that 600 Spanish conquistadors defeated the Aztec Army. Now they admit that perhaps 50,000 Indians were allies of the Spanish in the battle for the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlán. Once the Albinos admit that the Aztec were a Black people, that will be their first true history. As with the Aztec in Mexico, the Black Inca in Peru were brought down by Mongol type Indians allied with the Spanish.
posted
At the time, the Indians had not yet learned that the Albino man speaks with a “Forked tongue”: naturally the Albinos reneged on all of their promises to the Mongol Indians, which prompted the Indians to actually “SUE” the Spanish in Spanish courts, for the benefits they were promised – they lost. The suit is documented in: Litigation over the Rights of “Natural Lords” in Early Colonial Courts in the Andes, by JOHN V. MURRA - INSTITUTE OF ANDEAN RESEARCH. Today in the U.S, Mongol type Indians and their Mulatto and Albino brethren, often try to oust Blacks from their tribes, so as to selfishly deprive them of benefits from government programs earmarked for Indians. Of course, Black Native Americans were routinely enslaved.
posted
The next Black people into the Americas were Black Europeans, who had just recently lost their hegemony in Europe. Beginning in the 1500s, Europe's Albinos rebelled against Black rule, and the then, Black Catholic Church: culminating in the "Thirty Years Wars" (1618–1648) which for all practical purposes ended Black rule in Europe, and killed off huge numbers of Europe's Blacks. The survivors of the "Thirty Years Wars" as well as the British “Civil” Wars, were expelled to the Caribbean and North America as Indentured Servants, and outright Slaves. The Churches that came out of that Albino rebellion are called the Protestant (Protest) Churches, they are: Adventism, Anabaptism, Anglicanism, Baptist churches, Calvinism (Reformed tradition), Lutheranism, Methodism, Pentecostalism. Other Protestant branches: Transdenominational movements, Evangelicalism, Charismatic Movement, Neo-charismatic churches.
Another outcome of the Albinos rebellion in Europe is the Albinos attempt to revise history, and write Blacks out of history: to be replaced by themselves in place of Blacks. For that reason, it is impossible to say who were the first Black Europeans in the Americas. Example: eight months after the last Moorish city of "Granada Spain" fell: it was in the nearby town of Palos Spain, on the evening of August 3, 1492, that Christopher Columbus would depart on his journey to the Americas. One result of which, would be the African Atlantic Slave trade. But at this time, there was still hundreds of thousands of Black Moors in Spain and Portugal, not to mention the native Blacks of Portugal and Spain: note that King Ferdinand is a Mulatto (you can’t make mulattoes without Blacks)! Therefore it is safe to assume that a goodly percentage of Columbus’s crew were Blacks too.
The first foreign born Blacks in Virginia (as opposed to Native American Blacks) were probably the Black Scotsman of Virginia, who were defeated by Oliver Cromwell in his invasions of Scotland in the 1600s. They are detailed in the book: " White People, Indians, and Highlanders: Tribal Peoples and Colonial Encounters in Scotland and America by Colin G. Calloway". Quote from the book: When Oliver Cromwell defeated the Scots at Worcester, Cromwell transported hundreds of Scots prisoners as indentured servants to Virginia and the West Indies" Page 26.
The fact that these Scotsman were Black men is confirmed by many publications of those times: and is detailed by quotes from them: The Journal of a tour to the Hebrides, with Samuel Johnson - by James Boswell 1810 edition. (It should be noted that apparently all versions after 1810, and the “Project Gutenberg” version, have all had references to Blacks deleted, so care should be taken in which version you use).
Page 123 Quote: There was great diversity in the faces of the circle around us: Some were as black and wild in their appearance as any American savages whatever. One woman was as comely almost as the figure of Sappho, as we see it painted.
A Description of THE WESTERN ISLANDS of Scotland (CIRCA 1695) By Martin Martin, Gent.
Quote: The Complexion of the Islanders of the Isle of Arran, Quote: The inhabitants of this isle are well proportioned, generally brown, and some of a black complexion. It was Thomas Cromwell who destroyed all evidences of Black Rule in Britain. Article from the Daily Telegraph Media Group Limited 2015
Main Quote: No one can be sure of the exact figure, but it is estimated that the destruction started and legalized by Cromwell amounted to 97% of the English art then in existence. Statues were hacked down. Frescoes were smashed to bits. Mosaics were pulverized. Illuminated manuscripts were shredded. Wooden carvings were burned. Precious metalwork was melted down. Shrines were reduced to rubble. This vandalism went way beyond a religious reform. It was a frenzy, obliterating the artistic patrimony of centuries of indigenous craftsmanship with an intensity of hatred for imagery and depicting the divine that has strong and resonant parallels today.
The United States War of Independence (1775–1783) - The Black Loyalists
When the American Revolutionary War started, many Black British did the opposite of Crispus Attucks, they remained loyal to the British side. The British recognized early the opportunity to weaken the rebellion by encouraging the slaves of rebelling British citizens to run away and join the British side.
Lord Dunmore's Proclamation
Dunmore's Proclamation, also known as Dunmore's "Emancipation Proclamation," is a historical document signed on November 7, 1775, by John Murray, 4th Earl of Dunmore, royal governor of the British Colony of Virginia. The proclamation declared martial law and promised freedom for slaves of American revolutionaries who left their owners and joined the royal forces.
Quote: And I hereby further declare all indented servants, Negroes, or others (appertaining to Rebels) free, that are able and willing to bear arms, they joining His Majesty's Troops, as soon as may be, for the more speedily reducing the Colony to a proper sense of their duty, to this Majesty's crown and dignity. The units formed by these Black Loyalists included 'Dunmore's Ethiopian Regiment' and a Black mounted cavalry established in Virginia in 1782. Black soldiers took part in active combat, and were used as shock troops. Because of their knowledge of the terrain, some also acted as guides for the British troops, and others fulfilled a variety of roles, working (among other things) as sailors, miners, nurses and laborer’s.
When the defeated British withdrew from New York, Charleston and Savannah at the end of the war in 1783, an estimated 60,000 Loyalists went with them, including at least 14,000 Black men (no numbers from other ports). Some went to Nova Scotia, in Canada, or to the West Indies, but most traveled to Britain. They were condemned as traitors by the United States Assembly, which passed an Act of confiscation, depriving both Black and White Loyalists of their property.
The African-Americans arriving in Britain were refugees who had left everything behind, and they frequently found themselves in poverty. A small number of them - the minority who had held some property in America, most of whom were free-born - applied to a new Parliamentary commission for compensation. The registers of the commission record the applications of 47 Black and 5,000 White claimants. The documents show that Black Loyalists were often denied relief - and when they were granted money, the amounts awarded were almost always lower than those given to even the poorest White Loyalists. The commissioners justified their decisions on the grounds that Black claimants rarely had documentary evidence or 'reliable witnesses' to support their claims for compensation, while in many cases White Loyalists were able to provide such proof. The pension examiners, giving reasons for their judgments in the 'Decision' section of the case records, suggested that 'the Blacks should think themselves fortunate to have gained their liberty…' and cast doubt on their claims to be free-born. It seems that in many cases the commission was suggesting that the freedom granted by Lord Dunmore's proclamation was sufficient reward for Black Loyalists and that they were entitled to nothing more - despite the fact that Black men had risked life and limb for the British Crown, that many had left their families behind, and that many now faced poverty in Britain. Note: some of them wound up in the African nation of Sierra Leone. Note: for the purposes of our calculations, we will ignore the Blacks who left the United States after the British defeat.
Strangely we don't know when the first "Regular Route" slave ship from Africa arrived in the United States, but the 1619 landing was a lie and has been debunked, but come they did. Nobody knows how many slaves were imported from Africa. Some say as little as 200,000-300,000, Wiki says 645,000. Independent Researchers who have studied the slave trade itself, like Hugh Thomas, gives the total number of African slaves imported into the US (and British Colonial North America) as 500,000 persons. Emory University in their calculations, places the number for all of North America at 365,977 Africans imported to North America between the years 1626 and 1866, a total of 240 years. It seems then, that if we use the number 400,000 for our calculations, we cannot be far off with our results.
So let us try to calculate what percentage of Black United States citizens, Africans represent. For these calculations it will be necessary to Extrapolate African numbers because there is no differentiation in Slave records between Black native Americans, Black Europeans, and African Slaves. A big part in estimating Slave numbers, is knowing their living conditions: in this way we can estimate their survival rates, and likelihood of producing sufficient numbers of offspring for population increase.
Robert William Fogel - Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery, calculates that the birthrate for Slave women was 6.2 children per lifetime (this is live births, exclusive of the many unsuccessful pregnancies). It seems a reasonable rate, so we will use it. Of course, once the Slave child is born, the hardships are just beginning.
1) Childhood and Transatlantic Slavery by Steven Mintz, Columbia University. Quote: 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. Slave-owners 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.
2) Birth weights and infant mortality among American slaves by Steckel RH Quote: 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.
3) SLAVECHILD MORTALITY: SOME NUTRITIONAL ANSWERS TO A PERENNIAL PUZZLE. Bowling Green State Univ. Kenneth F. Kiple, Virginia H. Kiple Conclusion: A high incidence of slave child, and particularly slave infant, mortality relative to their white antebellum counterparts has proved to be a continuing source of frustration for students of the peculiar institution. As many as three infants out of every ten died before reaching their first birthday, and close to half perished before age ten. Note; these vile disgusting racists seek to place the blame for these deaths on Quote: “A conspiracy of nutrition, African environmental heritage, and North American climatic circumstances rather than planter mistreatment.”
So then: if we use Fogel’s 6.2 children per Slave woman as the norm, and subtract 50% representing the half which die before age ten, we get a net of 3.1 Slave children surviving to an age when they can reproduce.
Replacement rates - Replacement fertility is the total fertility rate at which women give birth to enough babies to sustain population levels. If there were no mortality in the female population until the end of the childbearing years (generally taken as 44, 45, or 49, though some exceptions exist) then the replacement level of TFR would be very close to 2.0. The replacement fertility rate is roughly 2.1 births per woman for most industrialized countries (2.075 in the UK, for example), but ranges from 2.5 to 3.3 in developing countries because of higher mortality rates. Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman.
Clearly, a Slaves life in the Southern U.S. was much worse than in any developing country of today, therefore the 3.3 Replacement fertility number is low, but for the purposes of our calculations we will use the obviously low 3.3 number. Remembering that only 3.1 Slave children survived to an age where they could reproduce: Right away we see the salient point: Slaves in the United States could not possibly have maintained their numbers, due to more deaths than live births. Thus their numbers were continually declining! This is extremely important, in that at every population data-point we look at; the African part of the population total would have declined from the previous data-point. Thus the 400, 000 African Slave figure that we have by 1866, will actually be less. But since we have no way of accurately calculating the actual African Slave totals for any period, we will still use the 400,000 figure for our calculations.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first United States census was in 1790, at that time there were 697,697 Slaves in the 13 United States.
YET LOOK AT THESE HUGE BLACK POPULATION INCREASES IN THE UNITED STATES!
WHERE ARE THEY COMING FROM?
(Indentured servitude lasted until roughly 1840 in mainland North America)
The United States has always been loath to admit that Whites were also enslaved. The 1850 census is the only time that they admitted that there was White slaves, and counted them separately.
posted
There were two sources for the large increases in Black Slaves: What happened to the Yuchi Indians was typical for Black Native Americans.
The Yuchi, also spelled Euchee and Uchee, are people of a Native American tribe who traditionally lived in the eastern Tennessee River valley in Tennessee in the 16th century. The Yuchi were well known mound builders. During the 17th century, they moved south to Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina. After suffering many fatalities due to epidemic disease and warfare in the 18th century, several surviving Yuchi were removed to Indian Territory in the 1830s, together with their allies the Muscogee Creek. (Some who remained in the South were classified as "free persons of color": others were enslaved). Some remnant groups migrated to Florida, where they became part of the recently formed Seminole Tribe of Florida.
The other source was Europe: where continental Albinos and the British, were still expelling Blacks.
Remembering that the “Thirty Years Wars” ended in 1648, the doings of the ship “Jamaica Galley” - Rotterdam to Cowes in England, to Philadelphia 7 February 1738. And ship Glasgow, Walter Sterling Commander - from Rotterdam but last from Cowes in England: And Ship Marlborough, Thomas Bell, Master. Qualified Sept. 23, 1741. From Rotterdam, but last from Cowes, carried a cargo of Palatine Males (Electoral Palatinate or County Palatine of the Rhine, a historic state of the Black Holy Roman Empire), is typical of British ships picking up Blacks from continual Europe, then picking up more from Britain, and then dumping them in the Americas.
In the case of those taken to Philadelphia, they would be free men, but they were required to take this oath: * Oath of Allegiance: We Subscribers Natives and late Inhabitants of the Palatinate upon the Rhine and places adjacent, having transported our Selves and Families into the Province of Pennsylvania, a Colony Subject to the Crown of Great Britain, in hopes and expectation of finding a retreat and peaceable Settlement therein DO solemnly promise and engage that we will be faithfull and bear true Allegiance to his present Majesty King George the Second and his Successon Kings of Great Britain and will be faithfull to the Proprietor of this Province and that we will demean our Selves peaceably to all his Majesties Subjects, and Strictly observe and conform to the Laws of England and of this Province to the utmost of our power and best of our understanding. (Original spelling).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having established where the United States of Americas Blacks came from: let us now calculate the percentage comprised by the African contingent. As previously established, African Slaves could not have increased their population. But once they were freed, then we can expect that over-time, they were able to better their situation to the point where they could increase their population by live birth-rate. How long does it take for a population to double?
The doubling time is the period of time required for a quantity to double in size or value. It is applied to population growth 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). 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. (Remembering that Slave numbers are actually DECLINING, U.S. Slave populations would NEVER DOUBLE!
Because of the massive amount of immigrants constantly coming to the United States, it is impossible to calculate population increases due to native birth rates, therefore an accurate doubling time cannot be calculated. A rough average of U.S. birth rates for the hundred years from 1911 to 2011 is 2.5. which is above the 2.1 total fertility rate (TFR) necessary to maintain a stable population for a nation with modern health care and sanitation.
From 2010 to 2013 the U.S. population growth rate was 0.8, therefore we will us this somewhat stable number to back calculate the African Slave population growth rate AFTER emancipation. (This rate is for modern people, which will of course be higher than the true value would be).
In 1870, the total Black population of the 37 United States of America is 4,880,009 people. This is just 5 years removed from Slavery but it will have to do. Inserting the maximum number of African Slaves into the equation (400,000 - which would at very best be stable).
This means that in 1960, of the 18.9 million Black Americans counted, only 800,000 of them were of African extraction. About 8 million were of Native American and Black European extraction. The rest would represent 100 years of Black migration to the United States from the Caribbean and Latin America: most of which are of Native American and Black European extraction too, though some are of African extraction. Because Black migration to the United States from the Caribbean and Latin America keeps increasing, it becomes ever harder to account for Africans in the United States population pool.
So at it's highest, Africans accounted for only 4.2% of the Black U.S. population.
Put another way: less than 1 out of every 20 Black U.S. citizens are of African extraction.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Several laws enforcing national origins quotas on American immigration were enacted between 1921 and 1924 and were in effect until they were repealed in 1965. While these laws were aimed at restricting the immigration of Jews and Catholics from central and eastern Europe and immigration from Asia, they also impacted African immigrants. This legislation effectively excluded Africans from entering the country. From the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 to 2007, an estimated total of 0.8 to 0.9 million Africans immigrated to the United States, accounting for roughly 3.3% of total immigration to the United States during this period.
Black Americans in 1960
The statistics were grim for black Americans in 1960. Their average life-span was seven years less than white Americans'. Their children had only half the chance of completing high school, only a third the chance of completing college, and a third the chance of entering a profession when they grew up. On average, black Americans earned half as much as white Americans and were twice as likely to be unemployed.
Despite a string of court victories during the late 1950s, many black Americans were still second-class citizens. Six years after the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision, only 49 southern school districts had desegregated, and less than 1.2 percent of black schoolchildren in the 11 states of the old Confederacy attended public school with white classmates. Less than a quarter of the South's black population of voting age could vote In certain Southern counties blacks could not vote, serve on grand juries and trial juries, or frequent all-white beaches, restaurants, and hotels.
In the North, too, black Americans suffered humiliation, insult, embarrassment, and discrimination. Many neighborhoods, businesses, and unions almost totally excluded blacks. Just as black unemployment had increased in the South with the mechanization of cotton production, black unemployment in Northern cities soared as labor-saving technology eliminated many semiskilled and unskilled jobs that historically had provided many blacks with work. Black families experienced severe strain; the proportion of black families headed by women jumped from 8 percent in 1950 to 21 percent in 1960. "If you're white, you're right" a black folk saying declared; "if you're brown stick around; if you're black, stay back."
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^People in Northern U.S. and the Caribbean "DO" have European family histories.
On the other hand, how do you imagine Slaves of any extraction, maintaining family histories?
It's not like Slave families were kept together from generation to generation. Basically a Slave knows only what he is told by his master.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: ^People in Northern U.S. and the Caribbean "DO" have European family histories.
On the other hand, how do you imagine Slaves of any extraction, maintaining family histories?
It's not like Slave families were kept together from generation to generation. Basically a Slave knows only what he is told by his master.
Here is the complicating fact, and why more Black Americans don't know their family history.
The Great Migration:
The Great Migration, or the relocation of more than 6 million African Americans from the rural South to the cities of the North, Midwest and West from 1916 to 1970, had a huge impact on urban life in the United States. Driven from their homes by unsatisfactory economic opportunities and harsh segregationist laws, many blacks headed north, where they took advantage of the need for industrial workers that first arose during the First World War. As Chicago, New York and other cities saw their black populations expand exponentially, migrants were forced to deal with poor working conditions and competition for living space, as well as widespread racism and prejudice. During the Great Migration, African Americans began to build a new place for themselves in public life, actively confronting economic, political and social challenges and creating a new black urban culture that would exert enormous influence in the decades to come.
So you had this massive movement of people who had been taught that they were Africans, moving into areas were the people might have at one time known better. But when confronted by so many people claiming to be African, after a while, they began to believe that they too were African.
As a test, how many of you are Blacks living in the U.S.?
Who told you that you were of African extraction?
Why did you believe it?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Having established where the United States of Americas Blacks came from: let us now calculate the percentage comprised by the African contingent. As previously established, African Slaves could not have increased their population. But once they were freed, then we can expect that over-time, they were able to better their situation to the point where they could increase their population by live birth-rate. How long does it take for a population to double?
The doubling time is the period of time required for a quantity to double in size or value. It is applied to population growth 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). 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. (Remembering that Slave numbers are actually DECLINING, U.S. Slave populations would NEVER DOUBLE!
1) The rapid growth of the slave population occurred during slavery so that fact that slavery ended at a certain point does not change this
2) the doubling time varies greatly according to the population's birth rate. So in the context of talking about slaves in America. Canada's net population growth of 0.9% in the year 2006 in relation to it is not relevant whatsoever For instance, Canada's growth rate in 2009 was 1.4% Angola's growth rate in 2009 was 3.12% But some countries have a negative growth rate: 2009> Cuba -0.05% Japan -0.20% Bulgaria 0.60%
So all of tis variance yields very different results as regards doubling
3) During the slavery era Europeans and Africans had different birth rates o you cannot generalize about the overall American population's growth rate combining majority and minority populations and expect that to give you a picture of the growth rate of just one of the populations.
So simply quoting wikipedia on methodology on doubling will not give you answers about a specific country or more importantly, an ethnic group inside a country until you make the calculations using data specific to it
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Because of the massive amount of immigrants constantly coming to the United States, it is impossible to calculate population increases due to native birth rates, therefore an accurate doubling time cannot be calculated. A rough average of U.S. birth rates for the hundred years from 1911 to 2011 is 2.5. which is above the 2.1 total fertility rate (TFR) necessary to maintain a stable population for a nation with modern health care and sanitation.
^^^ This is after the rapid growth of the African American population during slavery so it is irrelevant
THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN BORN TO A SLAVE WOMAN WAS 9.2 - TWICE AS MANY AS IN THE WEST INDIES
From 2010 to 2013 the U.S. population growth rate was 0.8, therefore we will use this somewhat stable number to back calculate the African Slave population growth rate AFTER emancipation. (This rate is for modern people, which will of course be higher than the true value would be).
that is a completely bogus methodology since the growth rate has varied greatly from emancipation to recent times. Either you have proper data or you don't From 2010 to 2013 is irrelevant !!!!
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
In 1870, the total Black population of the 37 United States of America is 4,880,009 people. This is just 5 years removed from Slavery but it will have to do. Inserting the maximum number of African Slaves into the equation (400,000 - which would at very best be stable)....
^^^ more bogus methodology, the vast majority of the 4,880,009 people IN THAT PERIOD -not recently- were descendants of slaves Therefore your bit about "inserting the maximum number of African Slaves into the equation (400,000)" is complete nonsense
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Because Black migration to the United States from the Caribbean and Latin America keeps increasing, it becomes ever harder to account for Africans in the United States population pool.
^^^ more nonsense, Blacks in the Caribbean and Latin America are also descendants of slaves And if you look at their DNA and the DNA of black Americans all of this DNA has high matching, around 80-85% on average with AFRICANS Not high frequency matches with indigenous Europeans, modern or prehistoric remains Not high frequency matches with modern Native Americans or prehistoric remains (although some admixture,yes)
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
So at it's highest, Africans accounted for only 4.2% of the Black U.S. population.
Put another way: less than 1 out of every 20 Black U.S. citizens are of African extraction. [/QB]
^^^ in other words this is totally wrong and the methodology is wrong -very wrong
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
So at it's highest, Africans accounted for only 4.2% of the Black U.S. population.
Put another way: less than 1 out of every 20 Black U.S. citizens are of African extraction.
quote:Originally posted by kdolo: Mike,
If significant numbers of Blacks are Euro descended, then how come there is such little oral/family history evidence.
There would be more Blacks who have a family tradition maintained of having been from Scotland, Palatine etc.....
How did these Euro Blacks lose all their Euro history ????
Those who are from Africa or Native have at least families oral histories - however vague- of being part native or having an ancestor from Africa.
Mike attempted to show (with grossly wrong miscalculations) that people of primary African descent account( for only 4.2% of the Black U.S. population
But even if his grossly wrong miscalculations were right that doesn't then prove that significant numbers of Blacks are Euro descended
In other words even if you prove something wrong it doesn't mean that then you can relpace it with an alternate explanation YET HAVE NO SIMILAR ANALYSIS, NO DETAIL TO SUPPORT THE NEW THEORY
So if you prove the moon is not made of cheese you cannot then claim that it it is made of sugar, you are still required to explain how it would be sugar instead
So you would stil have to explain how and on what ships multi millions of black nobles came to America on
-and if you can't do that , you just pretend that most blacks in America today are descendants of black native American who were already here
so you always have an escape hatch, if you can't make one work you switch to another, when you get called on it, switch again endlessly, tag team
Anyway, for the sake of argument let's look at Mike's scenario. multi millions of blacks are deported from Europe and they are the basis of blacks in America today
-THAT MEANS THEY CAME HERE ALREADY SPEAKING PERFECT ENGLISH, GERMAN, DUTCH ETC
now ask yourself is that believable?
And they just happened by coincidence to look just like Africans
And they were so stupid that the white Europeans were able to trick them into believing they were Africans
So if this is the case and Mike thinks Africans are dumb aren't blacks in America twice as dumb for not even knowing that they are really native European not African???
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Quote: Robert William Fogel - Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery, calculates that the birthrate for Slave women was 6.2 children per lifetime (this is live births, exclusive of the many unsuccessful pregnancies).
.
.
You can't count spontaneous abortions and stillbirths.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Contrary to Albino depictions of Slavery, which are primarily concerned with beatings: the Slaves life was one of almost total and complete depravity. It is a wonder that any of them survived, much less, as long as they did - which wasn't very long at all.
.
Yet you think that their populations would have INCREASED?????
posted
less than 1 out of every 20 modern Black Americans (U.S.) are of African extraction:
So where did the myth of Black African Americans come from?
And why don't Blacks in the U.S. know their true history?
Firstly, many Blacks in the Northern U.S. and the Caribbean do have an inklings of their true history: through tales passed down through the generations, or in rare cases, by annotations in family Bibles: these were of course "Free Blacks". The Slave family was rarely a family at all: It consisted of a woman whose spouse was often absent (for reasons beyond his control): He was sold or rented out, he was dead etc. The Slave woman raised her children only with the help of other Slave women in the same situation. Then after she had raised her children to adulthood, or thereabouts, they were routinely sold. Clearly there was no opportunity for Slaves to pass down their family history from generation to generation, or even care about their family history, they were interested in survival! For the Slave, the only credible source of information was his master, so whatever his master told him he was, that's what he believed he was, and that's what he told others.
Care should be taken at this point: Here we are dealing with terminology conveyed to us by people known to be degenerate and racist liars - the European Albino. The fact is that we don't know when Black Slaves in the U.S. first began to be called Africans - remembering that Albinos are expert at falsifying artifacts.
What about the Black abolitionist of the 1800s, did they call themselves Africans?
Frederick Douglass - was an escaped slave: Wiki quote: He was of mixed race, which likely included Native American on his mother's side as well as African and European. He spoke of his earliest times with his mother: "The opinion was ... whispered that my master was my father; but of the correctness of this opinion I know nothing.... My mother and I were separated when I was but an infant.... It was common custom, in the part of Maryland from which I ran away, to part children from their mothers at a very early age.
In the case of Frederick, he had no way of knowing, and we wonder where the information about his linage quote in Wiki came from.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do the European Albinos want you to believe that you are an African?
Two reasons:
1) To instill in you the concept of yourself: that you are primitive, and incapable of high achievement. Note that for hundreds of years, the Albinos claimed that ancient Egyptians were White - they still claim that the other great civilizations were White.
Note any anti-Black media source: the first thing the Albinos say is that Africans are primitive, animalistic, low IQ, and incapable of achievement. Not true, but that is the Albino line.
2) To keep you from thinking and researching about what really happened in Europe and the Americas: Both are horrendous cases of Genocide against Blacks, carried out by the Albinos!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The Great Migration:
The Great Migration, or the relocation of more than 6 million African Americans from the rural South to the cities of the North, Midwest and West from 1916 to 1970, had a huge impact on urban life in the United States. Driven from their homes by unsatisfactory economic opportunities and harsh segregationist laws, many blacks headed north, where they took advantage of the need for industrial workers that first arose during the First World War. As Chicago, New York and other cities saw their black populations expand exponentially, migrants were forced to deal with poor working conditions and competition for living space, as well as widespread racism and prejudice. During the Great Migration, African Americans began to build a new place for themselves in public life, actively confronting economic, political and social challenges and creating a new black urban culture that would exert enormous influence in the decades to come.
So you had this massive movement of people who had been taught that they were Africans, moving into areas were the people might have at one time known better. But when confronted by so many other people claiming to be African, after a while, they began to believe that they too were African. This kind of communal "Coming Together" was particularly prevalent during the "Civil Rights" and "Black Power" periods.
Those who went through those times, recall that there was great pressure to accept your "Africanness". So most everybody did, even those who had never thought of themselves as Africans before.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Contrary to Albino depictions of Slavery, which are primarily concerned with beatings: the Slaves life was one of almost total and complete depravity. It is a wonder that any of them survived, much less, as long as they did - which wasn't very long at all.
.
Yet you think that their populations would have INCREASED?????
Damn you're Stupid!
No Mike it make you even more stupid because you have put up evidence below which supports a popualtion increase in slaves, dumbass. I actally read this stuff and am not distrated by diversionary remarks thrown in like "is it any wonder that" or "how could it be" People trying ti implant doubt to slip in their own agendas are not going to work
Above Mike says" Contrary to Albino depictions of Slavery, which are primarily concerned with beatings: the Slaves life was one of almost total and complete depravity. It is a wonder that any of them survived, much less, as long as they did - which wasn't very long at all."
^^ Does the statement make any sense? So beatings are not part of a life of total and complete depravity? They are "contrary to" it ? So white people are trying to cover up a life of total and complete depravity by showing beatings instead? This makes no sense.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Yet you think that their populations would have INCREASED?????
If you look at the life of slaves in America there were beatings and depravity and a high birth rate. Mike wants to cover up that high birth rate to sweep Africans under the rug so he can give you a feel good story about how black people were realy European nobles. And who wants to hear horror stories all day long about being a slave? Can't we just pretend we we European nobles? Yes you can
but don't be so dumb as to produce the data below which supprts a high birth rate despite a mortality rate that is relativley high yet not enough to offset the birth rate.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: [qb] THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN BORN TO A SLAVE WOMAN WAS 9.2 -
Quote: Robert William Fogel - Without Consent or Contract: The Rise and Fall of American Slavery, calculates that the birthrate for Slave women was 6.2 children per lifetime (this is live births, exclusive of the many unsuccessful pregnancies).
.
Now let's look at more of the same book Mike is quoting from
^ quote
WHILE THE DEATH RATE OF US SLAVES WAS AS HIGH AS THAT IN JAMAICA THE BIRTH RATE WAS 80 PERCENT HIGHER
and the death rate which ran up to 5% a year does not offset that huge difference much
So despite poor conditions, infant moirtality, still borns, African slaves in the U.S. had a dramatic increase in births.
Now let's go back to Mike's delusions for a moment
"we can't be Africans, no way we were European nobles" " the African slaves couldn't have had a population increase look at the scars on this guy's back"
-O.K. so we must have come from blacks who lived under better conditions than slaves. They treated the black European nobles better but had just tricked them into thinking they were Africans
How much further must we go into this child like fantatsy world of denial? There was a time when militant black folk spoke of the trauma of the slave legacy as a rallying cry for social justice. Now anaonymous internet pseudo miltants and delusional MST adhearants pretend it was greatly exaggerated And this should be in sync with the white supremacist view that blacks greatly exaggerate slavery's impact and legacy
So what if we don't want to harp on slavery all the time? Fine, don't get into that aspect of black history in America, focus on black invention and achievement and African invention and achievement You dont have to focus on slavery, just dont try to sweep it under the rug and make false attempts to minimize it Leave it alone if you dont want to deal with it
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
So did the great Black leaders of Slavery times call themselves Africans or African Americans?
Granville Tailer Woods (1856 – 1910) was an African-American inventor who held more than 50 patents. He is also the first American of African ancestry to be a mechanical and electrical engineer after the Civil War. Self-taught, he concentrated most of his work on trains and streetcars. One of his notable inventions was the Multiplex Telegraph, a device that sent messages between train stations and moving trains. His work assured a safer and better public transportation system for the cities of the United States. According to some sources, Granville T. Woods was born to a mixed-race family in 1856; his mother's name was Martha J. Brown and his father's name was Cyrus Woods. He also had a brother named Lyates. His mother was part Indian (today referred to as Native American), and his father was black, or "Negro," as African-Americans were called back then.
Benjamin Banneker (1731 – 1806) was a free African American scientist, surveyor, almanac author and farmer. Born in Baltimore County, Maryland, to a free African American woman and a former slave. Benjamin Banneker was born on November 9, 1731, in Baltimore County, Maryland to his mother Mary, a free black, and his father Robert, a freed slave from Guinea. There are two conflicting accounts of Banneker's family history. Banneker himself and his earliest biographers described him as having only African ancestry. None of Banneker's surviving papers describe a white ancestor or identify the name of his grandmother. However, later biographers have contended that Banneker's mother was the child of Molly Welsh, a white indentured servant, and an African slave named Banneka.
Mary McLeod Bethune (1875 – 1955) Mary Jane McLeod was born in 1875 in a small log cabin near Mayesville, South Carolina, on a rice and cotton farm in Sumter County. She was the fifteenth of seventeen children born to Sam and Patsy McIntosh McLeod, both former slaves. Most of her siblings were born into slavery.
George Washington Carver (1860 – 1943), was an American botanist and inventor. The exact day and year of his birth are unknown; he was born into slavery in Missouri, either in 1861, or January 1864.
William Edward Burghardt "W. E. B." Du Bois (1868 – 1963) was an American sociologist, historian, civil rights activist, Pan-Africanist, author and editor. Born in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, Du Bois grew up in a relatively tolerant and integrated community. After graduating from Harvard, where he was the first African American to earn a doctorate, he became a professor of history, sociology and economics at Atlanta University. Du Bois was one of the co-founders of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in 1909. Du Bois was born on February 23, 1868, in Great Barrington, Massachusetts, to Alfred and Mary Silvina (née Burghardt) Du Bois. Mary Silvina Burghardt's family was part of the very small free black population of Great Barrington and had long owned land in the state. She was descended from Dutch, African and English ancestors. William Du Bois' maternal great-great-grandfather was Tom Burghardt, a slave (born in West Africa around 1730) who was held by the Dutch colonist Conraed Burghardt. Tom briefly served in the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War, which may have been how he gained his freedom during the 18th century. Tom's son Jack Burghardt was the father of Othello Burghardt, who was the father of Mary Silvina Burghardt.
Paul Laurence Dunbar (1872 – 1906) was an African-American poet, novelist, and playwright of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Born in Dayton, Ohio, to parents who had been slaves in Kentucky before the American Civil War, Dunbar started to write as a child and was president of his high school's literary society. He published his first poems at the age of 16 in a Dayton newspaper.
Marcus Mosiah Garvey, Jr. (1887 – 1940) was a Jamaican political leader, publisher, journalist, entrepreneur, and orator who was a staunch proponent of the Black Nationalism and Pan-Africanism movements, to which end he founded the Universal Negro Improvement Association and African Communities League. Marcus was born as the youngest of eleven children in St. Ann's Bay, Jamaica, to Marcus Mosiah Garvey, Sr., a mason, and Sarah Jane Richards, a domestic worker. Only his sister Indiana along with Marcus survived to adulthood. His family was financially stable given the circumstances of this time period. Garvey's father had a large library, and it was from his father that Marcus gained his love for reading.
Sojourner Truth (1797 – 1883) was an African-American abolitionist and women's rights activist. Truth was born into slavery in Swartekill, Ulster County, New York, but escaped with her infant daughter to freedom in 1826. After going to court to recover her son, in 1828 she became the first black woman to win such a case against a white man. She gave herself the name Sojourner Truth in 1843. Her best-known speech was delivered extemporaneously, in 1851, at the Ohio Women's Rights Convention in Akron, Ohio. The speech became widely known during the Civil War by the title "Ain't I a Woman?," a variation of the original speech re-written by someone else using a stereotypical Southern dialect; whereas Sojourner Truth was from New York and grew up speaking Dutch as her first language. Truth was one of the ten or twelve children born to James and Elizabeth Baumfree (or Bomefree). Colonel Hardenbergh bought James and Elizabeth Baumfree from slave traders and kept their family at his estate in a big hilly area called by the Dutch name Swartekill (just north of present-day Rifton), in the town of Esopus, New York
Harriet Tubman (born Araminta Ross c. 1822 – March 10, 1913) was an African-American abolitionist, humanitarian, and, during the American Civil War, a Union spy. Born into slavery, Tubman escaped and subsequently made some thirteen missions to rescue approximately seventy enslaved family and friends, using the network of antislavery activists and safe houses known as the Underground Railroad. She later helped abolitionist John Brown recruit men for his raid on Harpers Ferry, and in the post-war era struggled for women's suffrage.
Sarah Breedlove (1867 – 1919), known as Madam C. J. Walker, was an African American entrepreneur, philanthropist, and the first female self-made millionaire in America.[1][2] She made her fortune by developing and marketing a line of beauty and hair products for black women under the company she founded, Madame C.J. Walker Manufacturing Company. Sarah was born on December 23, 1867 in Delta, Louisiana. She was one of six children; she had a sister, Louvenia, and four brothers: Alexander, James, Solomon, and Owen Jr. Her parents and elder siblings were slaves on Madison Parish plantation, owned by Robert W. Burney. She was the first child in her family born into freedom after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed.
Booker Taliaferro Washington (1856 – 1915) was an African-American educator, author, orator, and advisor to presidents of the United States. Between 1890 and 1915, Washington was the dominant leader in the African-American community. Washington was from the last generation of black American leaders born into slavery and became the leading voice of the former slaves and their descendants, who were newly oppressed by disfranchisement and the Jim Crow discriminatory laws enacted in the post-Reconstruction Southern states in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Ida Bell Wells-Barnett (1862 – 1931) was an African-American journalist, newspaper editor, suffragist, sociologist, and an early leader in the civil rights movement. She documented lynching in the United States, showing that it was often used as a way to control or punish blacks who competed with whites, rather than being based in criminal acts by blacks, as was usually claimed by white mobs. She was active in women's rights and the women's suffrage movement, establishing several notable women's organizations. Wells was a skilled and persuasive rhetorician, and traveled internationally on lecture tours. Wells was born a slave in Holly Springs, Mississippi in 1862, just before United States President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation. Her father was James Wells and her mother was Elizabeth "Lizzie" Warrenton Wells. Both parents were enslaved until freed under the Proclamation.
Carter Godwin Woodson (1875 – 1950) was an African-American historian, author, journalist and the founder of the Association for the Study of African American Life and History. Woodson was one of the first scholars to study African-American history. A founder of The Journal of Negro History in 1915, Woodson has been cited as the father of black history. In February 1926 he announced the celebration of "Negro History Week", considered the precursor of Black History Month. Carter G. Woodson was born in Buckingham County, Virginia on December 19, 1875, the son of former slaves, James and Eliza Riddle Woodson. His father helped Union soldiers during the Civil War and moved his family to West Virginia when he heard that Huntington was building a high school for blacks.
No, they had no way of knowing their linagePosts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
SO WHERE DID THIS MOST-OFTEN "FALSE TERM" COME FROM?
. .
Copyright, African American Registry
In the 20th century, many black Americans shifted from colored to Negro to black and, most recently, to African-American, sometimes within one generation. "I've had to check several different boxes in my lifetime," said Donna Brazile, former Democratic campaign manager in the 2000 presidential race. "In my birth certificate I'm identified as a Negro. Then I was black. Now I readily check African-American. I have a group of friends and we call ourselves the colored girls sometimes, to remind ourselves that we aren’t too far from that, either."
The term African-American has crept steadily into the nation's vocabulary since 1988, when the Rev. Jesse Jackson held a news conference to urge Americans to use it to refer to blacks. "It puts us in our proper historical context," Jackson said then, adding in a recent interview that he still favored the term. "Every ethnic group in this country has a reference to some land base, some historical cultural base. African-Americans have hit that level of cultural maturity."
Polls show the number of blacks using the term has steadily increased. In a survey that year conducted by ABC and The Washington Post, 66 percent said they preferred the term black, 22 preferred African-American, 10 percent liked both terms and 2 percent had no opinion. In 2000, the Census Bureau for the first time allowed respondents to check a box that carried the heading African-American next to the term black. In 2003, a poll by the same news organizations found that 48 percent of blacks preferred the term African-American, 35 percent favored black and 17 percent liked both terms. The term has become such a fixture in the political dictionary that many white politicians, including President Bush and Senator John Kerry, his Democratic rival in 2004, favored it in their political speeches. Yet Kerry's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, who is white, has referred to herself on occasion as an African-American. She was born to Portuguese parents in Mozambique.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
^^^ this is not to say that slaves were not also terrorized and beaten to keep them in line and is not to says aspects of their conditions weren't terrible It just show that with a little adjustemnst to the exploitation system they could save a lot of money by improving certian conditions to create relensihment of slaves without having to import them
But what it shows is that Mike has no understanding of economics or that purpose of slavery was profit from no-pay labor
Employing real logic, not Mikean backward logic, we find that the European American slave masters realized that importing slaves from Africa entailed ship voyages and that slaves brought from Africa had to be forcibly taught English and taught American customs.
Employing real logic, not Mikean backward logic, we find that it made much more sense to have the slaves reproduce and be raised from babies and on to speaking and only knowing English and being born into the customes of the American system
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Slavery in the United States was especially distinctive in the ability of the slave population to increase its numbers by natural reproduction. In the Caribbean, Dutch Guiana and Brazil, the slave death rate was so high and the birth rate so low that slaves could not sustain their population without imports from Africa. Rates of natural decrease ran as high as 5 percent a year. While the death rate of U.S. slaves was as high as that in Jamaica, the birth rate was 80 percent higher. The average number of children born to an early 19th century Southern slave woman was 9.2--twice as many as in the West Indies.
University of Arkansas at Little Rock - Carl H. Moneyhon
The slave’s diet was barely adequate, as the death rate of slaves relative to whites showed. While barely adequate, slaves survived such conditions and, in Arkansas, possibly did relatively better than slaves in other Southern states. The 1850 census indicated that the death rate among Arkansas slaves was 1.83 per thousand, considerably lower than the overall national average of 2.13. On the other hand, the death rate among slaves was thirty percent higher than that of the state’s free population.
posted
^^^ At top he has The University of Minnesota its says the same thing as what I quoted
" While the death rate of U.S. slaves was as high as that in Jamaica, the birth rate was 80 percent higher."
^ they took this form the Steven Mintz book, the source Mike originally quoted ( he tried to use this book to argue and the same book winded up kicking him back in the ass)
This is Mike trying trick people by comparing two different things and pretending they are the same things. First the overall slave period in America a period of hundreds of years
So in his second source, University of Arkansas, he uses just one state and one year, Arkansas, 1850
A fair comparrsion ? Hell no, the methodology is garbage, a manipulation attempt
So again Mike is trying to manipuate the math with false comparisions, he is not interested in the truth he is interested in winning an argument and now he will proceed to lie endlessly because winning the argument is his goal
In one instance a state in 1820 had 1.83 per thousand now if we go to the overall death rate for the whole of American slavery we find a death rate much higher
BUT EVEN WITH THIS HIGHER DEATH RATE THE BIRTH RATE OF SLAVES INCREASED BY NATURAL REPRODUCTION
and every source agrees on this
So Mike continues to lie and continues to fail
-even in the higher death rate sceario he fails
______________________________
And now you will see Mike try to use this technique over and over again
instead of using two sources about the same issue
he will use a different issue and pretend he's comparing the same thing
His life depends an minimizing slavery
-The same thing a white supremacist would do
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^But lioness bullsh1t does make the point that trying to find accurate data for the U.S. Slave population is a hopeless cause.
So rather than continuing to jump through hoops, lets just use the numbers that we know for sure.
. .
.
We know that by 1866: 365,977 African Slaves had landed in North America. It has been logically determined that because of their poor treatment and health, Slave populations could not appreciably increase.
We know that just 4 years later in 1870, the Black population of the United States is 4,880,009 people.
Instead of trying to calculate the African portion of our population in MODERN times, let us satisfy ourselves with calculating the African percentage of the United States Black population in 1870.
365,977/4,880,009 = 0.074995 X 100 = 7.4995% (round to 7.5%).
Since African immigration was not allowed until modern times, the percentage represented by Africans in the total Black population could only DECREASE over time until 1965. Therefore the 7.5 percentage would only get smaller over time.
I suspect that by 1960 my admittedly convoluted figure of 4.2% might not be that far off.
In any event, very few Black Americans have anything to do with Africa.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
African Slaves had landed in North America. It has been logically determined that because of their poor treatment and health, Slave populations could not appreciably increase.
It hasn't been logically determined. It is simply a lie you keep telling over and over again because you are a chronic pathological liar
You are an evil manipulator who tries to trick people
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
1. What about the fact that Blacks are more fecund and robust than Whites...
absent horrific conditions, Blacks probably have a higher birth rate...
It is probably that after slavery, Black numbers increased rapidly....
2. Can we conjecture that Black numbers have always been intentionally under recorded amd under counted....even today it is done. ?
3. Is it possible that the akint of slaves brought in offcially is under counted. There must have been massive smuggling all along despite bans ...(think drugs) ??
If i recall correctly, by the turn of the century Margaret Sanger et al were concerend about he rapid increase in Black population and put forth measures and policy to reduce them.
Posts: 2818 | From: new york | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged |
1. What about the fact that Blacks are more fecund and robust than Whites...
absent horrific conditions, Blacks probably have a higher birth rate...
It is probably that after slavery, Black numbers increased rapidly....
2. Can we conjecture that Black numbers have always been intentionally under recorded amd under counted....even today it is done. ?
3. Is it possible that the akint of slaves brought in offcially is under counted. There must have been massive smuggling all along despite bans ...(think drugs) ??
If i recall correctly, by the turn of the century Margaret Sanger et al were concerend about he rapid increase in Black population and put forth measures and policy to reduce them.
You are not paying attention:
The 7.5% = 1 out of every 13.3 Black Americans is an African:
Is 1870 numbers.
NOT MODERN NUMBERS!
BTW - What, Blacks from other sources are weaker?
I don't understand your thinking.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Several laws enforcing national origins quotas on American immigration were enacted between 1921 and 1924 and were in effect until they were repealed in 1965. While these laws were aimed at restricting the immigration of Jews and Catholics from central and eastern Europe and immigration from Asia, they also impacted African immigrants. This legislation effectively excluded Africans from entering the country. From the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 to 2007, an estimated total of 0.8 to 0.9 million Africans immigrated to the United States, accounting for roughly 3.3% of total immigration to the United States during this period.
Since African immigration was not allowed until modern times (1965), but Black migration to the United States from the Caribbean and Latin America kept increasing, the percentage represented by Africans in the total Black population could only DECREASE over time from 1866 (1870) until 1965, when the ban was lifted. But even then, the 7.5 percentage would still only get smaller over time, even after 1965, because migration to the United States from the Caribbean and Latin America always increases, regardless of law.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Since African immigration was not allowed until modern times (1965), but Black migration to the United States from the Caribbean and Latin America kept increasing, the percentage represented by Africans in the total Black population could only DECREASE over time from 1866 (1870) until 1965, when the ban was lifted. But even then, the 7.5 percentage would still only get smaller over time, even after 1965, because migration to the United States from the Caribbean and Latin America always increases, regardless of law. [/QB]
More lies from sick puppy Mike
He acts like that Black migration to the United States from the Caribbean and Latin America was not people of African descent, how delusional can you get?
So he has spread the denial to the Carribean - even many more African slaves were trasported to the Carribean than to the United States !!!!
read this again, this is even unbelievable for Mike to say
quote:Originally posted by Mike111:
Since African immigration was not allowed until modern times (1965), but Black migration to the United States from the Caribbean and Latin America kept increasing, the percentage represented by Africans in the total Black population could only DECREASE over time from 1866 (1870) until 1965, when the ban was lifted.
so all these incoming blacks from the Caribbean and Latin America were coming in yet they were not of African descent
This is not retardation it's mental illness, Mike needs your help, this is a cry for help, I'm not kidding
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: so all these incoming blacks from the Caribbean and Latin America were coming in yet they were not of African descent
This is not retardation it's mental illness, Mike needs your help, this is a cry for help, I'm not kidding
So you are saying that:
ALL BLACKS IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE ARE DESCENDANTS OF AFRICAN SLAVES!
Okay, so why didn't you just say that instead of all the bullsh1t?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: so all these incoming blacks from the Caribbean and Latin America were coming in yet they were not of African descent
This is not retardation it's mental illness, Mike needs your help, this is a cry for help, I'm not kidding
So you are saying that:
ALL BLACKS IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE ARE DESCENDANTS OF AFRICAN SLAVES!
Okay, so why didn't you just say that instead of all the bullsh1t?
Jackass, I didn't say that because everybody has their own definition of "black"
^^^ Therefore if you want to call these people black, the answer is no, they are not of recent African descent
However Clyde might not call them Black anyway everybody has their own definition
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread is closed, lioness has trash all over the place. The first post has a link to the page. Open a new thread if anyone wants to make a comment.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fourty2Tribes - Does this mean that the shock has worn off? I never realized how married all, well, most of you, were to the notion that you are Africans, until I heard the deafening silence while lioness rode roughshod through the thread with her asinine posts.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: [QB] Fourty2Tribes - Does this mean that the shock has worn off? I never realized how married all, well, most of you, were to the notion that you are Africans, until I heard the deafening silence while lioness rode roughshod through the thread with her asinine posts.
My love for Africa is odd in America especially because I go as far as practicing the religion. Most African Americans identify more with European culture. I don't dislike European culture it's just that most of what I like about European cultrue originated in Africa. My pet name for Europe is South Africa since I see world maps upside down.
The real addiction is not to being African it's to being slaves. We are so drilled into this notion that blacks came as slaves that the notion of coming to America as anything else is foreign and bizarre.
When empirical evidence supports what society sees as foreign or bizarre it's a sign of social engineering.
You illustrate this well with Jamestown. Those 20 some odd Negroes are dogmatically refereed to as servants and slaves in the same way that Egyptians are refereed to as black Caucasians. It's against all logic and evidence because master said so. I have too many middle fingers to fall for that ****.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic