Following up what Mike111 speculated – African were here long before “slavery”. When he first mentioned it, I, like many here in the diaspora doubted his notion. After all we were educated about slavery and the middle passage etc. We were taught our “history” in our schools and we believed it. African descendants in the diaspora were slaves brought over from Africa by Europeans. Right?
I really have my doubts now and is leaning towards Africans were here (in The Americas) long before “slavery”. The genetic evidence emerging is now proving that. Showing pictures of Olmecs was not enough for me. I am more thorough than the pictorials/visuals. Give me scientific data. Well. I asked for it and I got too many. Now it is snow-balling. I pointed out many studies showing genetic proof of the likelihood of African presence long before slavery. That paper on Mexicans showing E1b1a in present in every sub-population. The dispersal pattern was consistent with pre-historic arrival. Then the study showing R1b-V88 in Native American/Black populations in Georgia and states in the south. They did not carry E1b1a but R1b-V88. I haven’t written in awhile so the studies do not come to mind but they are here on ESR. I have been reading papers occasionally papers over the last couple of years. I have reached the conclusion that the lies are coming too quickly (from these research “papers” for me to keep up the counter. They have reached a point of overt lies and falsification of data. Or clear omission of data. See my email from Wolfgang Haak on the Abusir. He lied replying to me that the Abusir dataset did not produce any CODIS STR when in fact he removed every STR that showed the Abusir were Africans. They left too much data inwith the Amarnas dataset so they were not making the same mistake twice. Any layman with some computing and genetic knowledge will see that Amranas are sub Saharan Africans. My last couple of years was focused on getting 45 re-elected and similar people. Kari, Mastriano etc Trump 2024!!! Anyways, back to the topic. So to prove Africans were here before slavery genetic data extracted from skeleton 1600ad and earlier will be very helpful. Or genetic data from contemporary populations from isolated groups etc may also be helpful. I was particularly interested in ancient DNA from people between Africa and the Americas and Europe. Eg St Helena Islands. If the ancient genetic data from graves in St Helena Island, Cape Verde, STP, Canary Islands, Easter Island , Sardinia, Balearic Islands, Corsica and the Azores etc. We know Africans lineage was in the Canary Islands long before “slavery”. We also know that the earliest non-native inhabitants of Cuba and some other Caribbean Islands were genetically related to Canary Islanders and NOT Spanish Europeans. Over the last couple of months I came across these two papers which further add fuel to the flame. That some African lineage found in the Americas are NOT related to “modern” Africans. These are separate and distinct African lineage that got to the Americas maybe about the late Neolithic. Or even bronze age. How?
The ancestry and geographical origins of St Helena’s liberated Africans - Marcela Sandoval-Velasco (these African lineage was unrelated to modern Africans)
Ancient DNA: A multifunctional Tool for Resolving Anthropological Questions: M. Martinez. (Balearic Islands grave contained African lineage during the Carthage ages.)
-------------------- Without data you are just another person with an opinion - Deming Posts: 12143 | From: When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
The ships holding millions of Black people do not add up.
a ship could hold one hundred and fifty people yet I do not see Black people lining up to get into a wooden ship and crossing unless they were already there
where would they store the food they would have to eat on the ship sailing from Africa to the Americas and the Africans have to eat also????
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
@king Yeah,but the slave trade occurred in the Americas for about 500 years depending on the region so it isn't impossible to account for that number by time only.
Posts: 1123 | From: New York | Registered: Feb 2016
| IP: Logged |
it seems they found out about 92000 Africans were slave traded. Even that is hard to believe it came from thirty six thousand voyages. Yet the 12.5 million Aficans do not add up to the truth about slavery.
Brazil somehow has Afro Brazil all slavery obsessed with claimed 4 million slaves yet theres 90million Black Brazilians. How did they breed to 90million Black Brazilians from the abuse of slavery.
this is the country brazil that has promoted plastic surgery to the poor people of Brazil. So influence the brazilians with looks and cheapen what happen with the quilombos and the death of Zumbi who made a society out of slavery obsession
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: @king Yeah,but the slave trade occurred in the Americas for about 500 years depending on the region so it isn't impossible to account for that number by time only.
The average number of children born to an early nineteenth-century southern slave woman was 9.2
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: @king Yeah,but the slave trade occurred in the Americas for about 500 years depending on the region so it isn't impossible to account for that number by time only.
Your counting millions of people like you are scooping a bag of nickels when Hundred was how much the ships could hold. It takes 3 months to get a ship to the Americas over 500 years thats less then a 10000 ships going nonstop 24 hours.
Its not possibly you could get 100 000 people over on ships to the americas when the ship was wooden and salt eats at wooden ships and not to mention the feces and the piss and also feeding people and the need for fresh air, the sores and the immobilization that causes pains and sores and sickness and also the number of boats that crashed.
Its highly doubtful Brother, that theslave story is reality.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: @king Yeah,but the slave trade occurred in the Americas for about 500 years depending on the region so it isn't impossible to account for that number by time only.
Your counting millions of people like you are scooping a bag of nickels when Hundred was how much the ships could hold. It takes 3 months to get a ship to the Americas over 500 years thats less then a 10000 ships going nonstop 24 hours.
Its not possibly you could get 100 000 people over on ships to the americas when the ship was wooden and salt eats at wooden ships and not to mention the feces and the piss and also feeding people and the need for fresh air, the sores and the immobilization that causes pains and sores and sickness and also the number of boats that crashed.
Its highly doubtful Brother, that theslave story is reality.
The average number of children born to an early nineteenth-century southern slave woman was 9.2
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: @king Yeah,but the slave trade occurred in the Americas for about 500 years depending on the region so it isn't impossible to account for that number by time only.
The average number of children born to an early nineteenth-century southern slave woman was 9.2
don't give me a number as if that proves something lioness. 9 children does not add up to ninety million, each generation the people pass on and the people decided how much children they have 4 million times 9.2 is 36.8million it does not add up to the eighty eight to 100 million Black Brazilians.
This slavery business is a load of bull
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thereal: @king Yeah,but the slave trade occurred in the Americas for about 500 years depending on the region so it isn't impossible to account for that number by time only.
Your counting millions of people like you are scooping a bag of nickels when Hundred was how much the ships could hold. It takes 3 months to get a ship to the Americas over 500 years thats less then a 10000 ships going nonstop 24 hours.
Its not possibly you could get 100 000 people over on ships to the americas when the ship was wooden and salt eats at wooden ships and not to mention the feces and the piss and also feeding people and the need for fresh air, the sores and the immobilization that causes pains and sores and sickness and also the number of boats that crashed.
Its highly doubtful Brother, that theslave story is reality.
The average number of children born to an early nineteenth-century southern slave woman was 9.2
it does not add up lioness 400000 times 9.2 is 3.6million enslaved people out of 45million does not add up
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
a ship could hold one hundred and fifty people yet where would they store the food they would have to eat on the ship sailing from Africa to the Americas and the Africans have to eat also???? [/QB]
were you aware that they did go on the ships they were captives forced in to do so in chains?
First published by British abolitionists in 1788, the diagram depicts a vessel of 400 slaves packed in cheek by jowl, some with just 2 feet and 7 inches of headroom. The Brooks was an actual ship that schlepped enslaved Africans to Liverpool, England, and typified the slave vessels of the era: The Regulated Slave Trade Act of 1788, which was designed to reduce deaths due to overcrowding on slave ships, allowed each man 6 feet by 1 foot 4 inches of space (women and children were granted slightly less room). By those measurements, the Brooks was able to carry up to 454 slaves. The diagram’s engraver could only squeeze in 400.
Slave ships ranged in size from the ten-ton Hesketh, which could carry a crew plus thirty captive Africans, to the 566-ton Parr, which carried a crew of 100 and could hold a cargo of as many as 700 enslaved people. The lower deck of a slave ship was divided into separate compartments for men and women, with the men shackled together in pairs and the women left unchained but confined below.
The duration of the transatlantic voyage varied widely,[2] from one to six months depending on weather conditions. The journey became more efficient over the centuries: while an average transatlantic journey of the early 16th century lasted several months, by the 19th century the crossing often required fewer than six weeks
During this trip, the slaves were often chained together and typically ate only one or two meals each day, with water. These meals consisted of beans, boiled rice, millet, cornmeal, and yams. These were foods that could be kept for long periods of time, either dried or in cans.
___________________________
A human in good condition and with water can last a month or more without food although many did die due to a variety of bad conditions
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
a ship could hold one hundred and fifty people yet where would they store the food they would have to eat on the ship sailing from Africa to the Americas and the Africans have to eat also????
were you aware that they did go on the ships they were captives forced in to do so in chains?
First published by British abolitionists in 1788, the diagram depicts a vessel of 400 slaves packed in cheek by jowl, some with just 2 feet and 7 inches of headroom. The Brooks was an actual ship that schlepped enslaved Africans to Liverpool, England, and typified the slave vessels of the era: The Regulated Slave Trade Act of 1788, which was designed to reduce deaths due to overcrowding on slave ships, allowed each man 6 feet by 1 foot 4 inches of space (women and children were granted slightly less room). By those measurements, the Brooks was able to carry up to 454 slaves. The diagram’s engraver could only squeeze in 400.
Slave ships ranged in size from the ten-ton Hesketh, which could carry a crew plus thirty captive Africans, to the 566-ton Parr, which carried a crew of 100 and could hold a cargo of as many as 700 enslaved people. The lower deck of a slave ship was divided into separate compartments for men and women, with the men shackled together in pairs and the women left unchained but confined below.
The duration of the transatlantic voyage varied widely,[2] from one to six months depending on weather conditions. The journey became more efficient over the centuries: while an average transatlantic journey of the early 16th century lasted several months, by the 19th century the crossing often required fewer than six weeks
During this trip, the slaves were often chained together and typically ate only one or two meals each day, with water. These meals consisted of beans, boiled rice, millet, cornmeal, and yams. These were foods that could be kept for long periods of time, either dried or in cans.
___________________________
A human in good condition and with water can last a month or more without food although many did die due to a variety of bad conditions [/QB]
Lioness that is nonsense!!!
Have you tried to feed 500 people??? Every day the food would rapidly go before they could get a handle on how much people they feed.
drinking water does not heal the disease and the poo and piss. You posted as if you made an statement. a ship carried five hundred people thats hundreds not millions or tens of thousand, use your mind and think lioness. The disease alone from the feces and piss alone would cause the ship to breakdown. not only it took several months thats thats 180 days of feeding five hundred people???NO WAY THAT THEY COULD CARRY THAT MUCH WEIGHT AND THE DISEASES WOULD OF BEING AFFECTED FROM THE FLIES.
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KING if someone says they believe Africans came to America before Columbus it depends on how many. That doesn't mean that they instantly believe that most African Americans came for this group supposedly before Columbus. They could believe that some African may have come before Columbus and still believe most has slave ancestors. I haven't checked this but I never heard anybody say the author of They Came before Columbus, Ivan van Sertima, said that most African Americans derive from Africans that came before Columbus.
Read this:
Who Were The First Europeans To Settle In What Is Now The US?
Have you tried to feed 500 people??? Every day the food would rapidly go before they could get a handle on how much people they feed.
drinking water does not heal the disease and the poo and piss. You posted as if you made an statement. a ship carried five hundred people thats hundreds not millions or tens of thousand, use your mind and think lioness. The disease alone from the feces and piss alone would cause the ship to breakdown. not only it took several months thats thats 180 days of feeding five hundred people???NO WAY THAT THEY COULD CARRY THAT MUCH WEIGHT AND THE DISEASES WOULD OF BEING AFFECTED FROM THE FLIES.
I actually do reading from people who have different points of view to be able to from a judgement about what is and what is not possible. You don't read anything. You just make assumptions of the top of your head and then add a few things from some highly opinionated one-sided video
You have to read for a few hours at minimum to even begin to understand these things. For instance you said "a ship could hold one hundred and fifty people"
That shows you read very little on the topic. There were ships of various sizes. The biggest one could carry 700. There are multiple levels and only around 3 feet between some of these levels
- and I showed a diagram of a real ship that had a layout showing how 400 people could be held yet you said "a ship could hold one hundred and fifty people" You don't know what you are talking about
And as I said before people can live a month or more with no food at all anyway > another topic you have not done your homework on
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: KING if someone says they believe Africans came to America before Columbus it depends on how many. That doesn't mean that they instantly believe that most African Americans came for this group supposedly before Columbus. They could believe that some African may have come before Columbus and still believe most has slave ancestors. I haven't checked this but I never heard anybody say the author of They Came before Columbus, Ivan van Sertima, said that most African Americans derive from Africans that came before Columbus.
Read this:
Who Were The First Europeans To Settle In What Is Now The US?
These earlier settlers kept records. They did not say in the journals "we discovered that large numbers of Africans had already settled here"
Are you sure this isn't wishful thinking?
Wishful thinking?? LIONESS BELIEF INSIDE SLAVERY FROM AFRICA IS HARDER TO BELIEVE BECAUSE PISS AND POO SORES AND IMOBILIZATION JUST AFRICANS SITTING THERE DOING NOTHING BUT THERE MIND NOT PLAYING ON THEN MIND TORTURE FEEDING OF HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE PEOPLE NOT HAVING SHOWERS OR BATHS, CHILDREN GOING THROUGH TORTURE. ILLNESS AND MOTION SICKNESS STARVATION ETC
400000 times 9.2 is 3.68million enslaved if that 400000 is correct not the number of 45 million Black Americans.
Its harder to believe that transatlantic was real then it was not
Posts: 9651 | From: Reace and Love City. | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic