posted
"The American Negro, says Zoologist Curt Stern of the University of California in Scientific American, is doomed to disappear through racial diffusion. As a group of mankind, American Negroes are relatively new. They have existed for only 300 years, and are already notably mixed. Dr. Stern figures from their blood-group makeup that about two-thirds of their genetic material (heredity) comes from Africa, about one-third from Europe. More than 78% of American Negroes have some non-African genes; by 1980 there will be hardly a single U.S. Negro of pure African descent." - "The Vanishing Negro". Science. Monday, Oct. 04, 1954.
"[T]he American colored population is, in fact, at least one-fifth Caucasion in genetic composition (Roberts 1955)." - Hulse, F.S. (1978). "Group selection and sexual selection in human evolution". In: Evolutionary models and studies (Hague) Meier, R., Otten, C.M., Abdel-Hameed, F. (eds.), Moulton Publisher, Paris. p. 33.
"On the basis of recent studies of the incidence of the Duffy blood group gene Fya, which is absent in Africans but has a high frequency in Europeans, Reed (1969) has estimated that on average about one-fifth to one-quarter of the genes of persons currently regarded as Afro-Americans are of European origin." - Eveleth, P.B. & Tanner, J.M. (1976) Worldwide Variation in Human Growth: Cambridge Univ. Press, London p. 82
"The percentage of European ancestry in African Americans has been given as 25 to 28% (Putnam, 1961, p. 92), among other figures; a 1998 study of genetic markers of 1022 self-identified African Americans from nine big cities showed they were 16.4% European, or about 5/6 African and 1/6 European. (Parra, 1998; also, Rosenberg, 2002). Shrivers (2003) found that African Americans have ~80% Sub-Saharan African ancestry." http://erectuswalksamongst.us/Chap14.htmlPosts: 873 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Recent studies say that african americans that do have european admixture the average is about 13%,not 25% or 28%. That above is outdated study and i know someone here has the updated stuff,i just don't have time to post it.
Anyway most likely MORE then 50% of african americans do not have european admixture,meaning most do not have european admixture at all.
I was reading some stuff in the older thread and i think Lamin has some info on that and some others. claus3600 maybe you contact him.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Characterizing the admixed African ancestry of African Americans 2009 Fouad Zakharia
Numerous studies have estimated the rate of European admixture in African Americans; these studies have documented average admixture rates in the range of 10% to 20%, with some regional variation, but also with substantial variation among individuals [1]. For example, the largest study of African Americans to date, based on autosomal short tandem repeat (STR) markers, found an average of 14% European ancestry with a standard deviation of approximately 10%, and a range of near 0 to 65% [1], whereas another study based on ancestry informative markers (AIMs) found an average of 17.7% European ancestry with a standard deviation of 15.0% [2]. By using nine AIMs, Parra and colleagues [3] found substantial variation of European ancestry proportions in African-American populations across the United States, ranging from just over 10% in a Philadelphia group to more than 20% in a New Orleans population. Similar levels (11% to 15%) of European ancestry also were reported by Tishkoff and co-workers [4], based on more than 1,000 nuclear microsatellite and insertion/deletion markers.
[1]Tang H, Jorgenson E, Gadde M, Kardia SL, Rao DC, Zhu X, Schork NJ, Hanis CL, Risch N: Racial admixture and its impact on BMI and blood pressure in African and Mexican Americans. Hum Genet 2006, 119:624-633.
_________________________________________________
Estimating African American Adixture Proportions by use of Population Specific Alles 1998
It’s no wonder. According to several historians, most African Americans today who believe they are of Native American heritage are misled. Dr. Rick Kittles, a geneticist and co-founder of www.africanancestry.com who has performed DNA testing on over 30,000 African Americans offers, “If you ask ten African-Americans if they have Native American ancestry, eight of them will say ‘yes,’ but when we actually test them, it’s less than 10 percent.”
Interestingly, as far back as the 1920s, Dr. Carter Woodson (known as the father of Black History) posited that a third of most African Americans have Indian blood. Research since DNA genetic testing confirms that 5% of all African Americans have at least 12.5% Native American ancestry, equivalent to a great grandparent.
The weakness of the genetic tests poses an even bigger problem when you're looking for Native American ancestors. Native Americans have been reluctant to participate in genetic testing, which means scientists don’t have many reliable markers for that population. In addition, the genetic profiles that have been conducted show that many card-carrying members of certain tribes, such as the Cherokee, have more European ancestors than Native American ancestors. That means even the small number of Native American genetic markers we know of aren’t present in large segments of the population, making it difficult to find evidence of Native American DNA in people like Elizabeth Warren. That's part of the reason that most Native American tribes have resisted using ancestral genetic analyses to determine membership. Tribal membership has more to do with the culture and location of one’s ancestors than precisely how many of their relatives can be traced back to the Bering land bridge. Just fewer than 2 million people are enrolled in Native American tribes, representing about 0.7 percent of the population. That’s not a reliable estimate of how many people have Native American ancestry, however. Each tribe has its own rules about the “blood quantum” required for membership, and some qualified people have not enrolled in a tribe. Got a question about today’s news? Ask the Explainer. Explainer thanks Charles Aquadro of Cornell University, Kimberly Tallbear of UC-Berkeley, and Spencer Wells of the Genographic Project of the National Geographic Society.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
African americans are not has mixed has once thought.
On that show african american lives it was shown that most african americans do not have native american dna.
Only 5% OF THE AFRICAN AMERICAN POPULATION HAVE SOME FORM OF NATIVE AMERICA DNA.
It was A myth pass on,and if folks use common sense there would be no way that most would have native america dna since african americans were much larger in numbers then the native american population.
Most of them were isolated from them and 200-300 or so is not enough time FOR wide spread admixture.
Most african americans most likely do have admixture but IF that true then it's a slight majority.
I would say about at most 46% of african americans have some form of european dna,and about 5% have some form of native american dna.
LESS THEN 10% of africa americans have native america dna.
That means about 51% of african american may have some form of admixture,but it still could be lower or just a little higher.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Firewall - I know all of that came out of your head, as in imagined. If there is anything left in your head, might I suggest that you use it to actually research the subject.
When researching it's best to line up the data that you do know, in this case, the "TOTAL" number of African slaves imported into the United States was about 500,000.
In 1900 the total U.S. Black population was 8,840,789 (keep in mind that slaves worked from dawn to dusk with poor nutrition - even pregnant females were required to do their normal work).
By 1900 more than 50 million Europeans had immigrated to the United States since 1607, for a total U.S. population of 76,094,000 of which appx. 68 million were Albinos.
Think about those numbers for a while.
Then consider this:
Between 1900 and 2000 there was massive European immigration to the U.S. of appx 100 million.
There was no similar massive influx of Blacks.
(I don't have the immigration numbers for 2000 - 2110. But it was probably in excess of 10 million).
In 2010 the Albino population of the United States was 223,553,265
In 2010 the Black population of the United States was 38,929,319
Think about those numbers for a while, then rethink your statement.
BTW - Where was the Black admixture suppose to have come from, an owner fuching his slaves? If he did that all day, every day, how many children would he produce? Hint - Albinos ain't that strong.
Not to mention that pregnant females don't work that well.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't insult,i was going by what was said here awhile ago,and looking at some other stuff has well.
The info i got so far is that Most african americans may have admixture but a large number do not. I have not look to deep into it,just reading some stuff off and on.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Don't insult,i was going by what was said here awhile ago,and looking at some other stuff has well.
The info i got so far is that Most african americans may have admixture but a large number do not. I have not look to deep into it,just reading some stuff off and on.
to say we have some trace of DNA to the tune of 46% is one thing. However the average admixture rate is thought to be about 14%.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike what percentage Black Indigenous European do you guess you are? Under or over 50% ?
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firewall: Don't insult,i was going by what was said here awhile ago,and looking at some other stuff has well.
The info i got so far is that Most african americans may have admixture but a large number do not. I have not look to deep into it,just reading some stuff off and on.
to say we have some trace of DNA to the tune of 46% is one thing. However the average admixture rate is thought to be about 14%.
Some the average 13%,others say 11% etc.. But my point some african americans have admixture and some don't. I remember reading lamin's post and a few others here saying most african american do not have european admixture,that is my point.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Firewall - You deserved insult for treating the subject so cavalierly. If you couldn't be bothered to think about it, then you shouldn't be bothered to comment about it.
But I'll give you a second chance:
The most common Black American Y-dna is the African E1b1a.
In Europe E1b1b is a common Y-dna Haplogroup.
There is only the tiniest difference between the two:
Haplogroup "R1b" is the most common Y-dna Haplogroup in Europe.
Haplogroup "R" is common throughout Europe, Central Asia and South Asia, and also common in parts of the West Asia and Africa.
So then Firewall, please explain how anyone could POSSIBLY say what the ADMIXTURE of Blacks in the United States is, when the Admixture goes back to long before there was a United States?Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Firewall - By now you must have come to the conclusion that the admixture thing is just more of the Albino boys guessing and making stuff up - they do that a lot!
Want some more? Try this:
Anatomically modern humans (Wiki)
The emergence of anatomically modern human marks the dawn of the subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens, i.e. the subspecies of Homo sapiens that includes all modern humans. The oldest fossil remains of anatomically modern humans are the Omo remains, which date to 195,000 (±5,000) years ago.
The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 92, Issue 3, 454-459, 28 February 2013
An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree.
We report the discovery of an African American Y chromosome that carries the ancestral state of all SNPs that defined the basal portion of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree. We sequenced ∼240 kb of this chromosome to identify private, derived mutations on this lineage, which we named A00. We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval = 237–581 kya).
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Quote- Firewall - By now you must have come to the conclusion that the admixture thing is just more of the Albino boys guessing and making stuff up - they do that a lot!
That i know.
I don't have time for this,i will leave on this note,because i will not talk about this further in this thread.
Well whatever games the Albino is playing that's up to them,some info that i have read is from those of african origin the u.s.,so maybe you are saying they should not be trusted either?
Of course there is a point to that as well.
What you saying to me,you should have said to lamin and the others while you have the chance.
Maybe you did,i have not read every post,and yes you are insulting and not being nice.
Stop playing games while you are at,say what you have to say and be done with it.
That's my advice to you.
I deal with nice folks,not mean ones,not even on the internet. I could careless if you are pro black or not. Just be nice,if not, i stop talking to you.
Besides i remember someone says you like to make stuff up,like THIS white european was really black and so forth.
Anyway,i will leave this thread on this note i think most african americans do not have european admixture and if it's most it's not has high only a slight majority meaning still a large number do not have have any whites in thier background to make my point more clear and any european admixture that african americans got it is really from white europeans in america.
There are types of views about this,i am just mentioning mine.
Let me say this last thing since i really came here to talk about the culture and history of those of african origin,not to play mind games.
Note- IT's possible for a few blacks in certain regions to have a white ancestor in the past,and still have no white admixture,and it's possible for a few whites to have a black ancestor but no recent african dna.
This happens only if that person keeps having kids with those within a certain group and that group has awhole or most in that group do not have outside admixture.
That it's, i am done.
Posts: 2560 | From: Somewhere | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged |
Note- IT's possible for a few blacks in certain regions to have a white ancestor in the past,and still have no white admixture,
Actually that's a oxymoron and not really possible. Having a Albino ancestor is by definition admixture.
and it's possible for a few whites to have a black ancestor but no recent african dna.
This is very true, but to a greater extent than you realize. "ALL" Whites who are not "PURE" Albino fall into this category.
Note this data as relates to the above:
Blue eyes are increasingly rare in America
The New York Times - October 18, 2006
Once a hallmark of the boy and girl next door, blue eyes have become increasingly rare among American children. Immigration patterns, intermarriage, and genetics all play a part in their steady decline. While the drop-off has been a century in the making, the plunge in the past few decades has taken place at a remarkable rate.
About half of Americans born at the turn of the 20th century had blue eyes, according to a 2002 Loyola University study in Chicago. By mid-century that number had dropped to a third. Today only about one 1 of every 6 Americans has blue eyes, said Mark Grant, the epidemiologist who conducted the study.
A century ago, 80 percent of people married within their ethnic group, Grant said. Blue eyes -- a genetically recessive trait -- were routinely passed down, especially among people of English, Irish, and Northern European ancestry.
By mid-century, a person's level of education -- and not ethnicity -- became the primary factor in selecting a spouse. As intermarriage between ethnic groups became the norm, blue eyes began to disappear, replaced by brown.
The influx of nonwhites into the United States, especially from Latin America and Asia, hastened the disappearance. Between 1900 and 1950, only about 1 in 10 Americans was nonwhite. Today that ratio is 1 in 3.
So then, it would seem that White (Albino) admixture is really the issue NOT Black admixture. Once again the Albino boys have attempted to pull a fast one (a misdirection) on us.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
Stop playing games while you are at,say what you have to say and be done with it.
That's my advice to you.
Mike is the master of innuendo. He pretends like he has a point to make but won't tell you what it is. I give him the same advice all the time, make a clear point but it's like talking to a brick.
quote:Originally posted by Firewall:
Besides i remember someone says you like to make stuff up,like THIS white european was really black and so forth.
that's the magical land Mike lives in
quote:Originally posted by Firewall:
Anyway,i will leave this thread on this note i think most african americans do not have european admixture and if it's most it's not has high only a slight majority meaning still a large number do not have have any whites in thier background to make my point more clear and any european admixture that african americans got it is really from white europeans in america.
According to the below article one in 136 African Americans have no European ancestry. Eight in 136 have more than 45% with only four or five having more than 50% European ancestry and none having more than 72%.
Characterizing the admixed African ancestry of African Americans
Fouad Zakharia et al.
The largest African ancestral contribution comes from the Yoruba, with an average of 47.1% ± 8.7% (range, 18% to 64%), followed by the Bantu at 14.8% ± 5.0% (range, 3% to 28%) and Mandenka at 13.8% ± 4.5% (range, 3% to 29%). The contributions from the other three African groups were quite modest, with an average of 1.7% from the Biaka, 0.5% from the Mbuti, and 0.3% from the San.
Background Accurate, high-throughput genotyping allows the fine characterization of genetic ancestry. Here we applied recently developed statistical and computational techniques to the question of African ancestry in African Americans by using data on more than 450,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) genotyped in 94 Africans of diverse geographic origins included in the HGDP, as well as 136 African Americans and 38 European Americans participating in the Atherosclerotic Disease Vascular Function and Genetic Epidemiology (ADVANCE) study. To focus on African ancestry, we reduced the data to include only those genotypes in each African American determined statistically to be African in origin.
Results From cluster analysis, we found that all the African Americans are admixed in their African components of ancestry, with the majority contributions being from West and West-Central Africa, and only modest variation in these African-ancestry proportions among individuals. Furthermore, by principal components analysis, we found little evidence of genetic structure within the African component of ancestry in African Americans.
Conclusions These results are consistent with historic mating patterns among African Americans that are largely uncorrelated to African ancestral origins, and they cast doubt on the general utility of mtDNA or Y-chromosome markers alone to delineate the full African ancestry of African Americans. Our results also indicate that the genetic architecture of African Americans is distinct from that of Africans, and that the greatest source of potential genetic stratification bias in case-control studies of African Americans derives from the proportion of European ancestry.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
^Lioness - Thank you for teaching me a lesson on laziness. I rarely read what I call "nonsense studies" because I know going in that there is no way that they can be accurate. As with this one:
"Characterizing the admixed African ancestry of African Americans"
I knew that there is almost 40 million or more Blacks in the U.S. Therefore a decent study would take thousands of samples, and such a large study I would have heard of, so I ignored your posting.
Well I just perused it, and lo and behold what did I find???
Statistical proof of my own thesis on Black Americans being Black Europeans.
As you know, I use population statistics from past eras to show that there is no way that Blacks in the U.S. could be predominately Africans. Note the numbers below.
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Firewall - I know all of that came out of your head, as in imagined. If there is anything left in your head, might I suggest that you use it to actually research the subject.
When researching it's best to line up the data that you do know, in this case, the "TOTAL" number of African slaves imported into the United States was about 500,000.
In 1900 the total U.S. Black population was 8,840,789 (keep in mind that slaves worked from dawn to dusk with poor nutrition - even pregnant females were required to do their normal work).
By 1900 more than 50 million Europeans had immigrated to the United States since 1607, for a total U.S. population of 76,094,000 of which appx. 68 million were Albinos.
Think about those numbers for a while.
Then consider this:
Between 1900 and 2000 there was massive European immigration to the U.S. of appx 100 million.
There was no similar massive influx of Blacks.
(I don't have the immigration numbers for 2000 - 2110. But it was probably in excess of 10 million).
In 2010 the Albino population of the United States was 223,553,265
In 2010 the Black population of the United States was 38,929,319
Think about those numbers for a while, then rethink your statement.
BTW - Where was the Black admixture suppose to have come from, an owner fuching his slaves? If he did that all day, every day, how many children would he produce? Hint - Albinos ain't that strong.
Not to mention that pregnant females don't work that well.
As you can see from above, the Black population of the U.S. "SUPPOSEDLY" with only a SEEDING of 500,000 Africans, went to 8,840,789 in 1900. That is appx. an 18 fold increase in about 300 years: quite incredible when one considers that Slaves are overworked and the "LEAST" nutritioned of the general population.
Now then, lets compare what the overworked, underfed Blacks did, as compared to what their masters, the well-fed laziassed Albinos did:
By 1900 more than 50 million Europeans had immigrated to the United States since 1607, for a total U.S. population of 76,094,000 of which appx. 68 million were Albinos.
THAT'S A 36% INCREASE!!!!!
COMPARE: BLACKS INCREASE BY BIRTH BY 1800%
ALBINOS INCREASE BY BIRTH BY 36%
He,he,he:
Albinos are fuched up, but not THAT fuched up, therefore there has to be another explanation - and there is:
The Black population in the U.S. was increased by ENSLAVED Blacks, and those Indentured as Servants, as part of the expulsion of Blacks from Europe.
Characterizing the admixed African ancestry of African Americans
Background
Accurate, high-throughput genotyping allows the fine characterization of genetic ancestry. Here we applied recently developed statistical and computational techniques to the question of African ancestry in African Americans by using data on more than 450,000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) genotyped in 94 Africans of diverse geographic origins included in the HGDP, as well as 136 African Americans and 38 European Americans participating in the Atherosclerotic Disease Vascular Function and Genetic Epidemiology (ADVANCE) study. To focus on African ancestry, we reduced the data to include only those genotypes in each African American determined statistically to be African in origin. He,he,he: anyone know what that means?
94 Africans PLUS: 136 African Americans PLUS: 38 European Americans.
Who but a group of idiots would do such nonsense? (Of course these studies are geared to Albinos who are always glad to have their pityfullness pumped-up).
Conclusions
These results are consistent with historic mating patterns among African Americans that are largely uncorrelated to African ancestral origins, and they cast doubt on the general utility of mtDNA or Y-chromosome markers alone to delineate the full African ancestry of African Americans. Our results also indicate that the genetic architecture of African Americans is distinct from that of Africans, and that the greatest source of potential genetic stratification bias in case-control studies of African Americans derives from the proportion of European ancestry.
So then Boys and Girls, either you believe that the Massa, his overseer, and all the Albino boys in town, spent all of the time impregnating slave women:
Which would leave Black Americans looking like middle-easterners, and America unbuilt: (pregnant women can't do much work).
OR.... THE GREAT MAJORITY OF BLACK AMERICANS ARE IN FACT EUROPEAN IN ORIGIN!
posted
folks, Mike doesn't like the idea of being an African:
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: As you can see from above, the Black population of the U.S. "SUPPOSEDLY" with only a SEEDING of 500,000 Africans, went to 8,840,789 in 1900. That is appx. an 18 fold increase in about 300 years: quite incredible when one considers that Slaves are overworked and the "LEAST" nutritioned of the general population.
Statistical proof of my own thesis on Black Americans being Black Europeans.
Why would the numbers be affected by the nationality? One could say: "SEEDING of 500,000 Black Europeans" and the same outcome numbers are involved. What you see as a problem in the numbers is the same 500,000 'seeding"
About 600,000 slaves were imported into the U.S., or 5% of the 12 million slaves brought across from Africa to the Americas. The great majority of African slaves went to sugar colonies in the Caribbean and to Brazil, where life expectancy was short and the numbers had to be continually replenished. Life expectancy was much higher in the U.S. (because of generally better food, less disease, lighter work loads, and better medical care) so the numbers grew rapidly by excesses of births over deaths, reaching 4 million by the 1860 Census. From 1770 until 1860, the rate of natural growth of North American slaves was much greater than for the population of any nation in Europe, and was nearly twice as rapid as that of England
______________________________________
Mike, don't like it? Change the nationality to Black European, same numbers. If you have a numerical problem it is the same regardless of nationality
______________________________________________
By 1860, there were 3.5 million enslaved African Americans in the United States due to the Atlantic slave trade, and another 500,000 African Americans lived free across the country
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. At the same time, the increasing restraints on births felt by free women was absent form the slave popualtion, which was encouraged to maintain high birth rates. The average numbre of children produced by resident lsave women was about six. Slave women tended to have their first conceptions while in their teens.
The formal end to the foreign slave trade in 1808 had no impact—the smuggling of slaves was common—and in any event, natural increase accounted for practically all of the slave-population growth in the United States. ______________________________________
Mike, don't like it? Change the nationality to Black European, same numbers. If you have a numerical problem it is the same regardless of nationality
______________________________________________
There are many things to like about Africa but you have to look for them and want to find them. You think you are actually a black European? Fine but there are still many things to like about Africa but you have to look for them and want to find them. If you only see Africa as negative you are using that to convince yourself you are European. Don't use Africa for that purpose. One of the ways to appreciate Africa is by the traditional music. There are many instruments. It's hard not to like the Kora, Mbira and Baliphone I like the music of Mali, Cameroon, Ethiopian jazz and South African chorus. If you let the music play in the background while working on something it seeps in. You can still have the idea that you are European and spend some time liking African culture as well. Also there is a lot of interesting food recipes in Africa, things like sweet potato with peanut tomato sauce, Samsas (bean fritters), Coconut rice. Many things, I like a website, ironically called Celtnet becuase they have a lot of recipes and they are organized by countries. You can try a different country each time.
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Life expectancy was much higher in the U.S. (because of generally better food, less disease, lighter work loads, and better medical care) so the numbers grew rapidly by excesses of births over deaths, reaching 4 million by the 1860 Census. From 1770 until 1860, the rate of natural growth of North American slaves was much greater than for the population of any nation in Europe, and was nearly twice as rapid as that of England
Ha,ha,ha: Damn lioness, you have outdone yourself! This type of lying blazes new trails entirely. Your Albino parents must be very proud of you.
Only problem is that the living conditions of U.S. slaves is well documented, where are you going to find lying documents to support your stupendous lies?
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Life expectancy was much higher in the U.S. (because of generally better food, less disease, lighter work loads, and better medical care) so the numbers grew rapidly by excesses of births over deaths, reaching 4 million by the 1860 Census. From 1770 until 1860, the rate of natural growth of North American slaves was much greater than for the population of any nation in Europe, and was nearly twice as rapid as that of England
Ha,ha,ha: Damn lioness, you have outdone yourself! This type of lying blazes new trails entirely. Your Albino parents must be very proud of you.
Only problem is that the living conditions of U.S. slaves is well documented, where are you going to find lying documents to support your stupendous lies?
The great majority of African slaves went to sugar colonies in the Caribbean and to Brazil, where life expectancy was short and the numbers had to be continually replenished. Life expectancy was much higher in the U.S.
That doesn't mean the people were treated nicely
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: Life expectancy was much higher in the U.S. (because of generally better food, less disease, lighter work loads, and better medical care) so the numbers grew rapidly by excesses of births over deaths, reaching 4 million by the 1860 Census. From 1770 until 1860, the rate of natural growth of North American slaves was much greater than for the population of any nation in Europe, and was nearly twice as rapid as that of England
Ha,ha,ha: Damn lioness, you have outdone yourself! This type of lying blazes new trails entirely. Your Albino parents must be very proud of you.
Only problem is that the living conditions of U.S. slaves is well documented, where are you going to find lying documents to support your stupendous lies?
The great majority of African slaves went to sugar colonies in the Caribbean and to Brazil, where life expectancy was short and the numbers had to be continually replenished. Life expectancy was much higher in the U.S.
That doesn't mean the people were treated nicely
Damn - What a pathetic Albino you are.
"That doesn't mean the people were treated nicely"
As explanation for a BIG lie, that's pretty sad!
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
According to Robert W. Fogel and Stanley Engernan in their monumental study, "Time on the Cross", Slaves usually received a monthly allowance of corn meal and salt-herrings. Frederick Douglass received one bushel of corn meal a month plus eight pounds of pork or fish. Some plantation owners gave their slaves a small piece of land, a truck-patch, where they could grow vegetables. Economic Incentive
Slave-owners systematically deprived infants and children of resources because it was profitable to do so. Setting aside moral responsibilities to another human being, it is plausible and makes economic sense for slave-owners to seasonally be scantily disperse resources.
Due to diseases related to specific nutritional deficiencies in diet, which were prevalent among the American slave population it is possible that the slave victims were fed diets with adequate micro-nutrients but very few calories.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
While working on plantations in the Southern United States, many slaves faced serious health problems. Improper nutrition, unsanitary living conditions, and excessive labor made them more susceptible to diseases than their masters; the death rates among the slaves were significantly higher due to diseases. Human excretions in the water supply caused cholera, diarrhoea, typhoid, tuberculosis, influenza, and hepatitis, as well as other things such as STD's.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike, you're having an emotional meltdown, slave health conditions do not change the fact that there were dramatic increases in birth rates after the advent of the cotton gin. Slaves were treated as a commodity to be bought and sold and eventually more efficient means were developed to maintain the value of the traded 'commodity'
You have mentioned some things about slave health. If they were actually black European noble slaves rather than black African slaves it doesn't change that.
And if you don't like the numbers it doesn't matter, It just means more black European nobles or more black African slaves were brought in than thought to have been brought in
In an ill thought out attempt to argue, you mentioned the book "Time on the Cross" by Robert W. Fogel and Stanley Engernan.
Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery (1974) is a book by the economists Robert William Fogel and Stanley L. Engerman. Asserting that slavery was an economically viable institution that had some benefits for African Americans, the book was reprinted in 1995 at its twentieth anniversary. First published a decade after the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, the book contradicted contemporary assessments of the effects of slavery on African Americans in the American South before the Civil War. It attracted widespread attention in the media and generated heated controversy and criticism for its methodology and conclusions
Many in the historical community were impressed with the authors' application of cliometrics. Many in the civil rights movement were outraged by the conclusions that suggested slavery was beneficial for African Americans (some called the book a rallying cry for racism). In general many historians and economists criticized the authors' findings and methodology.
The book directly challenged the long-held conclusions that American slavery was unprofitable, a moribund institution, inefficient, and extremely harsh for the typical slave. The authors proposed that slavery before the Civil War was economically efficient, especially in the case of the South, which grew commodity crops such as cotton, sugar, and coffee. These types of crops were usually grown on plantations that employed a gang system of labor, which was closely monitored and considered more efficient than task-based work by smaller groups.
Fogel wrote that small farms were just as productive as free farms. He said that the large plantation-style slave farms (16+ slaves) were the most efficient, having a Total Factor Productivity ratio (Ai/Aj) to be around 1.33. Fogel also wrote that if slaves had a day of rest, they tended to be more efficient because of the extra day of rest. They would be able to regain their energy and thus have more energy to produce more. "In their revised view slaves were hard working; slave labor was of superior quality. Indeed, this helps explain why large slave plantations were much more efficient than free southern farms."[3] In addition, since different crops were grown in the South and the North, he noted that although slavery was efficient in the South, it would not have been so in the North due to different weather and other conditions.
The authors predicted that if slavery had not been abolished, the price of slaves would have continued to rise rapidly in the late 19th century as more land was put into production for cotton. The book compares conditions and economics in the "Old South" (Atlantic Coastal states) with the "New South" (areas further west, commonly called the Deep South). It evaluates available statistics to shed light on slave life. The authors point out that following emancipation and the end of the Civil War, the life expectancy of freedmen declined by ten percent, and their illnesses increased by twenty percent, over slavery times. The authors evaluated oral interviews conducted by the Federal Writers' Project of the Works Progress Administration, United States Census information, and other statistical data to assert that many slaves were encouraged to marry and maintain households, they were given garden plots, the dehumanizing practice of "slave breeding" was virtually non-existent, the quality of their daily diets and medical care were comparable to the white population, and many trusted slaves were given great responsibility in managing plantations. This was in contrast to other accounts of the dehumanizing effects of slavery.
Fogel and Engerman asserted that slavery had a reciprocal economic benefit for slave owners and slaves. They wrote, "Slave owners expropriated far less than generally presumed, and over the course of a lifetime a slave field hand received approximately ninety percent of the income produced."(p. 5-6) They were estimating the value of housing, clothing, food and other benefits received by the slaves and argued that they lived as well in material terms as did free urban laborers; life was difficult for both classes
^^^^ MIKE THIS IS YOUR SOURCE THE ONE >YOU< MENTIONED
FURTHERMORE THEY ARE WHITE PEOPLE, THESE SOURCES OF YOURS
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: You have mentioned some things about slave health. If they were actually black European noble slaves rather than black African slaves it doesn't change that.
And if you don't like the numbers it doesn't matter, It just means more black European nobles or more black African slaves were brought in than thought to have been brought in.
Ah Mon Amie, you have just breached the wall:
THERE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ANY BLACK EUROPEAN NOBLES, MUCH LESS BLACK EUROPEAN NOBLES WHO WERE ENSLAVED OR INDENTURED TO THE AMERICAS!!!!Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by the lioness,: You have mentioned some things about slave health. If they were actually black European noble slaves rather than black African slaves it doesn't change that.
And if you don't like the numbers it doesn't matter, It just means more black European nobles or more black African slaves were brought in than thought to have been brought in.
Ah Mon Amie, you have just breached the wall:
THERE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE ANY BLACK EUROPEAN NOBLES, MUCH LESS BLACK EUROPEAN NOBLES WHO WERE ENSLAVED OR INDENTURED TO THE AMERICAS!!!!
I agree, only some wackos believe that, black Hebrew Israelites, fried cods and so on
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mike how educated were some of these nobles? I heard some these kings, so born into bloodline entitlements were in fact illiterate
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
You might as well say--and I will totally disagree-that Apartheid as an economic system was beneficial to Southern Africans because it offered them work and it helped in the economic development of South Africa. You might as well say that slave labour in Nazi Germany was beneficial to the enslaved in that they helped in the Nazi war effort by providing vital services to the German economy.
The problem with the slave systems mentioned above is that all deny full human agency to their victims. Under the Apartheid system the black South African population also grew at a better than average rate due to a number of factors.
U.S. slavery was a cruel system based on ensuring that a captive population as the labour factor of production be used in such a way that profits be maximised in a large local market and a larger globalised market--i.e. Western Europe.
By contrast the population of the indigenous Native Americans rapidly declined during the same period because they occupied spaces for European settlement.
Again re black slavery in the U.S.: there was an increasing demand for controlled and owned labour as capitalist markets expanded to all parts of the U.S. It was then seen as preferable to ensure that captive females produce as many offspring as possible to maximise on replacement rates that were more risky given the added distances from West Africa.
But all in all the Atlantic slave trade was 100% unacceptable because of its wicked and criminally dehumanising effects on humans. Much, much worse than your Holocaust.
And you just missed that central point. Some would say obviously so.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Again re black slavery in the U.S.: there was an increasing demand for controlled and owned labour as capitalist markets expanded to all parts of the U.S. It was then seen as preferable to ensure that captive females produce as many offspring as possible to maximise on replacement rates that were more risky given the added distances from West Africa.
I just don't understand why Brain-dead Albinos keep repeating a lie, even after it has been debunked many times. Well I suppose, if they don't get tired of repeating the lies, then I shouldn't get tired of debunking them.
Stolen Childhood Slave Youth in 19th Century America By Wilma King
Enslaved parents had an unusually heavy responsibility, for they not only had to survive, but they also had to ensure that their children survived. Child-rearing practices among African Americans had roots in their traditional customs; motherhood, however, took on two unique characteristics for enslaved women in the United States, First, because of an accepted pattern of matrilineal or matrifocal families in traditional African societies, many African women reared children without help form the Fathers. Moreover, the disproportionate number of men taken by salve traders left many women with dependent children to care for and a grater portion of the work, ordinarily completed by men, to perform. The women managed with the help of other women. Like their sisters in Africa, many American slave women adjusted to patenting without spouses due to circumstances beyond their control such as imbalances in the sex ratio and the propensity of slaveowners to sell men separately.
Thomas Jefferson's meaning was obvious when he wrote that "a child raised every 2 years is of more profit than the crop of the best laboring man." He considered the "labor of a breeding woman as no object" and instructed his plantation manager to impress upon the overseer that "it is not their labor, but then increase which as the first consideration with us." Jefferson was not alone in this philosophy. In 1858 an unidentified author contributed "'Profits of a Farming'--Facts and Figures" to the Southern Cultivator, which explains his view about the value of reproduction:
I own a woman who cost me $400 when a girl in 1827. Admit she make me nothing--only worth her victuals and clothing. She now has three children, worth over $3000 and have been field hands say three years in that tune making enough to pay their expenses before they were half hands, and then I have the profit of all half hands. She has only three boys and a girl out of a dozen (12 pregnancies to get 4 children); yet, with all her bad management, she has paid me ten percent interest, for their work was to be an average good, and I would not this might touch $700 for her. Her oldest boy is worth $1250 cash, and I can get it.
The slaveholders financial status and need for laborers determined the numbers of slaves they owned. For example, by 1860 approximately on-half of the slaveholders in Maryland owned less than three slave; therefore, it is unlikely that each adult slave had a spouse in the same household. Children born to men and women owned by different persons became the property of the mother's owner. The father's owner experienced no increase in wealth or workers. John C Cohoon serves as an example in this matter. He recorded 104 births among the sixteen families he owned. Of the children, thirty were born into six female-headed households where family sizes ranged from two to nine children. Cohoon listed Dick Petris, John Saunders, and Henry Arthur as the fathers of several of these children. There is no further information about the men. Nevertheless, their progeny added value to Cohoon's coffer.
Pregnant women were often ignorant of their bodily functions and needs during gestation. They did not own their persons, nor did they have the resources to assure healthy pregnancies and safe deliveries. "Their work could interfere with the blood supply to the placenta and jeopardize the health of the fetus. Some slaveholders were aware of the relationship between heavy physical labor and low-birth weight babies, but they were not aware of the connection to high infant mortality rates. Until owners and overseers knew the women were pregnant, they continued their work as usual. Two women, Treaty and Lousine, who belonged to the Georgia slaveholder John B. Lamar, suffered miscarriages in 1855. Lamar suspected that his overseer Stancil Barwick was abusive, but Barwick maintained that he did not know that Treaty was pregnant and was not aware of Lousine's "condition" until she aborted the fetus. It is possible that neither he nor the women were aware of their conditions or that their work caused the miscarriages.
The loss of a fetus among enslaved women was not uncommon. "I am never been safe in de family way," said Josephine Bacchus, an ex slave from South Carolina when interviewed by a work Projects Administration (WPA; interviewer in the 1930s. She attributed her inability to have a "nine month child" to the lack of "good attention" during slavery. In the late 1830s, slave women on a Georgia plantation owned by Pierce Mease Butler told their pitiable stories of aborted fetuses, difficult births, and infant deaths to his wife Frances Anne Kemble and asked her to help modify their work. The women were essentially correct in believing that a link existed between heavy work and the health of an unborn child, but heavy work is probably most detrimental daring the earlier stages of gestation.
Unlike its legal status, the size of a slave family varied. Many births were one and one half to two and one half years apart. Systematic breastfeeding in conjunction with general poor postnatal health, which interfered with the Fertility of enslaved women, may account for the spacing of their children. Other factors, abstinence while breastfeeding and involuntary abstinence because of abroad marriages, also help to explain the intervals between births miscarriages, still-borns, or infants dying before receiving a name and having it placed in record books are other factors for consideration. Well cared-for children grew into strong healthy adults who could render life-long service, and slaveowners were ever cognizant of that potential. The gulf between a slaveowner's desire and reality often hinged upon the health of the children, whom through no fault of their mothers, entered the world with meager chances of survival. The historian John Blassingame declares that they suffered from neglect and a variety of ills. "Treated by densely ignorant mothers or little more enlightened planters," he writes, "they died in droves. "The deaths of the children often had little to do with the lack of proper medical treatment. What the mothers and children ate is of greater importance. The majority of them breastfed the children, but their poor prenatal and postnatal diets limited the milk's supply of nutrients necessary to support life and prevent diseases. Many suckling children consumed milk that would not keep them alive or healthy. Furthermore, the mothers had limited time in which to care for children because of the demands for their labor.
Richard Steckel, for example, answers questions about the health of slaves with height records acquired from 10,562 manifests kept by American ship captains engaged in coastal and interregional slave trade between 1820 and 1860 along with the mortality data in plantation records, and the growth curves from eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth century populations. Steckel concludes that the quality of life for slave children was exceedingly poor. American slaves, in early childhood, were small in stature by comparison with Caribbean slaves and in the selected American and European population in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Infant mortality rates were not light, and communicable diseases were color blind in antebellum America. Slaveowners and slaves alike lived with sickness and death. Planter diaries and overseer records teem with notations of illness and death. One slaveholder complained in 1861 of the "unprecedented mortality" on his plantation, Twenty of his slaves died within fourteen years. Fevers, intestinal worms, measles, and whooping cough took their toll.
In a study of deaths among the African American population in seven slaveholding states in 1849 and 1850, Kenneth and Virginia Kiple found that 51 percent of the deaths among the nonwhite population occurred among children nine years of age and under. Slave children in that age group constituted 31 percent of the sample. These statistics suggest that slave mothers needed and extraordinary amount of fortitude to adjust to the large number of deaths among their children. The Kiples admit that the slave children nine years of age and under fell into an "actuarially perilous category" became of deaths related to several ailments including tetanus, teething, and lockjaw. The slave's chance of living from these ailments was four times greater than that of their white contemporaries. If slave children survived their early years and entered the labor force when they were ten years of age or older, their health improved because of increased food allowances. Until that time, slave parents grappled with the illnesses and deaths. Poor prenatal care and diets rich in calorie content but inadequate in nutrients, combined with heavy physical work were overriding factors in low birth weights and the resulting high infant mortality rates. Frances Kemble thought that "the number [of children] they bear as compared with the number they rear [is] a fair gauge of the effect of the system on their health and that of their offspring."
The high incidence of illness and death among their children affected slave and slaveholding parents. Their reactions ran the full gamut. Many consoled themselves with their religion and saw death as the will of a supreme being, a liberator freeing the deceased from a life of drudgery or a grantor of eternal rest and piece. When talking about her child's death, Tabby Abby said, "I like to went crazy for a long time atta dat." Aside from the mental anguish, some slave mothers were visibly shaken. The former South Carolina slave, Fannie Moore, described her mother's reaction when her younger brother died. The girl cared for the child during the day except when their grandmother could get away "from the white folks' kitchen." When the woman returned from the field one night and learned of the child's death, she knelt "by de bed and cry her heart out," Moore recalled. The mother was also at work when the child's uncle carried the body in a pine box to the cemetery. The girl observed the burial from a distance as her mother "just plow and cry as she watch 'em put George in de ground."
The enslaved woman Lydia felt a sense of relief when death liberated her child from bondage. Her husband, an African, prepared the child's body for burial along with "a small bow and several arrows; a little bag of parched meal; a miniature canoe, about a foot long, and a little paddle." Having armed the boy with a sharpened nail attached to a stick and buried him with a piece of white muslin decorated with "several curious and strange figures," the father anticipated his son's return to his "relations and countrymen," who because of this ritual would recognize and receive the child upon his arrival.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^lamin - Please tell me, what is it with you Albinos and your inability to discard racial myths which common sense should tell you can't work?
Well I hope your reading comprehension is such that the above text enlightens you to the fact that trying to breed slaves for profit was an idiot idea. Just getting them to replace themselves and MAINTAIN their numbers was hard enough.
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. As we saw with the Southern Cultivator whose female slave required 12 pregnancys to produce 4 children: being a fool, he did not understand that the ordeal weaken her, and soon she would have to be replaced. Slave breeding was not a worthwhile enterprise, and few tried it.
Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 1850 United States census was the first federal U.S. census to query about the "nativity" of citizens — where they were born, either in the United States or outside of it — and is thus the first point at which solid statistics become available for immigration to the United States.
FROM 1850 to 1900, ALBINO IMMIGRATION TO THE UNITED STATES WAS 38,221,294
In the 50 years between 1850 and 1900 the White population increase by birth is the total White population in 1900 of 67,371,379 minus the 1850 White population of 19,987,563 minus the total number of White immigrants in that period of time which was 38,221,294 which equals 9,162,522. So that the 50 year Albino population increase by births was 46%.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^In is estimated that 500,000 Africans were enslaved and shipped to the United States in the 1700s. In 1808 the Importation of Slaves from Africa was Outlawed by the United States (not Slavery). Estimates are that as many as 40,000 Slaves may have been smuggled into the United States between 1808 and 1865.
In 1865, the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ended slavery and involuntary servitude. BUT NOT INDENTURED SERVITUDE! Indentured servitude is a contract that both parties enter into willingly.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948) declares in Article 4 "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms". However, only national legislation can establish its unlawfulness. In the United States, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act (VTVPA) of 2000 extended servitude to cover PEONAGE as well as Involuntary Servitude.
Peonage is a type of involuntary servitude of laborers (peons) having little control over their employment conditions. Peonage existed historically during the colonial period, especially in Latin America and areas of Spanish rule, as well as in the Southern United States after the American Civil War. Whites used the "Black Codes" and other systems to gain the forced labor of African Americans after slavery was abolished.
The "Black Codes" The Black Codes were laws in the United States passed after the Civil War with the effect of limiting the civil rights and civil liberties of blacks. Even though discrimination laws against blacks existed in both Northern and Southern states from the early 19th century, the term "Black Codes" is used most often to refer to legislation passed by Southern states at the end of the Civil War to control the labor and movement of newly-freed slaves.
In Texas, these codes were enacted in 1866, right after the Civil War. The legislation reaffirmed the inferior position that slaves and free blacks had held in antebellum Texas and was intended to regulate black labor. The codes reflected the unwillingness of white Texans to accept blacks as equals and also their fears that freedmen would not work unless coerced. Thus the codes continued legal discrimination between whites and blacks. The legislature, when it amended the 1856 penal code, emphasized the continuing line between whites and blacks by defining all individuals with one-eighth or more black ancestry as persons of color, subject to special provisions in the law.
In the 50 years between 1850 and 1900 the Black population increase by birth is the 1900 population of 8,840,789 minus the 1850 population of 3,204,313 which equals 5,636,476 for a Black population increase by births of 176%.
As a reminder: In the 50 years between 1850 and 1900 the White population increase by births is 46%
In the 50 years between 1850 and 1900 the overworked and underfed Black population increase by births is 176%:
WHICH IS ALMOST 4X THE WHITE INCREASE - THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE - THE BLACK POPULATION MUST BE INCREASING FROM ANOTHER SOURCE!
And it was - With Slavery no longer an option, Black Europeans were still being forced into indentured servitude and expelled from Europe, this may have continued until 1900 or even later. (Between 1890 and 1900 the Black population increase was 18%, which is very high for such a short time.Posts: 22721 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 1910s were the last decade in American history in which immigration to the United States from Europe was unrestricted. The largest groups to immigrate during the 1910s were from eastern and southern Europe. (About 8,800,000 immigrants arrived in that period).
Many were probably Mulattoes who looked like this:
You might as well say--and I will totally disagree-that Apartheid as an economic system was beneficial to Southern Africans because it offered them work and it helped in the economic development of South Africa. You might as well say that slave labour in Nazi Germany was beneficial to the enslaved in that they helped in the Nazi war effort by providing vital services to the German economy.
The problem with the slave systems mentioned above is that all deny full human agency to their victims. Under the Apartheid system the black South African population also grew at a better than average rate due to a number of factors.
U.S. slavery was a cruel system based on ensuring that a captive population as the labour factor of production be used in such a way that profits be maximised in a large local market and a larger globalised market--i.e. Western Europe.
By contrast the population of the indigenous Native Americans rapidly declined during the same period because they occupied spaces for European settlement.
Again re black slavery in the U.S.: there was an increasing demand for controlled and owned labour as capitalist markets expanded to all parts of the U.S. It was then seen as preferable to ensure that captive females produce as many offspring as possible to maximise on replacement rates that were more risky given the added distances from West Africa.
But all in all the Atlantic slave trade was 100% unacceptable because of its wicked and criminally dehumanising effects on humans. Much, much worse than your Holocaust.
And you just missed that central point. Some would say obviously so.
I am not agreeing with "Time on the Cross" by Robert W. Fogel and Stanley Engernan. Mike is the one that brought up that source and that book is famous for showing profitability of the slave trade to the majority white population. My argument is that there were increased birthrates and that book shows how we were treated as a commodity rather than intended to be wiped out for genocidal purposes even though many people died and were tortured. The Maafa is my Maafa it was cruel and a severly inhumane crime that included murder. But the motive obviously was free labor for a cotton boom, other agricultural economic projects and domestic servitude.
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by lamin: Again re black slavery in the U.S.: there was an increasing demand for controlled and owned labour as capitalist markets expanded to all parts of the U.S. It was then seen as preferable to ensure that captive females produce as many offspring as possible to maximise on replacement rates that were more risky given the added distances from West Africa.[/qb]
I just don't understand why Brain-dead Albinos keep repeating a lie, even after it has been debunked many times. Well I suppose, if they don't get tired of repeating the lies, then I shouldn't get tired of debunking them.
Stolen Childhood Slave Youth in 19th Century America By Wilma King
Stolen Childhood Slave Youth in 19th Century America By Wilma King
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: Maafa - "MY MAAFA"???
He,he,he: these Albinos are hilarious.
you seem to believe as per th U.S. it never happened at all
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
The maritime town of Lagos, Portugal, was the first slave market created in Portugal for the sale of imported African slaves - the Mercado de Escravos, opened in 1444. In 1441, the first slaves were brought to Portugal from northern Mauritania. Prince Henry the Navigator, major sponsor of the Portuguese African expeditions, as of any other merchandise, taxed one fifth of the selling price of the slaves imported to Portugal. By the year 1552 black African slaves made up 10 percent of the population of Lisbon. In the second half of the 16th century, the Crown gave up the monopoly on slave trade and the focus of European trade in African slaves shifted from import to Europe to slave transports directly to tropical colonies in the Americas - in the case of Portugal, especially Brazil. In the 15th century one third of the slaves were resold to the African market in exchange of gold. ____________________________________________________
^^^^ Notice how the piece is called "American Slavery" yet makes no mention of slaves imported to the United States, strange
He has a longer piece on slavery in Africa you'll see at the link
As many on this site say--you are nuts. What is it you're trying to say? Just a nutty, fantasy spinning person.
You have inculcated in your hallucinating mind that the black population in the U.S. grew mainly because of--"news of the weird"--blacks entering the U.S. from Europe.
Did they swim across? How did they enter Mike? Ellis Island? Plymouth Rock? Or by--LOL--helicopter? Where are the records Mike. Mike, you are on something. What is it? 'Shrooms?
A bit of real history for you Mike: it was not uncommon for black women to have as many as 10 offspring from 1750 onwards. It's there in the records Mike. That explains the rapid increase in the black U.S. population from the supposed 500,000. Note that when the trade was abolished in 1806 then in 1834--there was still a lot of smuggling going on. So your official list of 500,000 compiled by white is bound to be way off. Even though Louisiana was sold to the U.S. by the French in 1803 transactions concerning the plantation captives were done in French and the Code Noir was still enforced. My point being that the number of captives must not have been carefully added into the official 500,000 number.
To support my point the last Africa born-captive to enter the U.S. did so in 1860 and died in 1934. His name was Cudjo--actually it's a Ghanian name Kodwo--Lewis. But there were others who entered at later dates. I read a while back of one man who was lured aboard a ship by the captain who promised him sweets, so the unsuspecting youth went aboard and before he realised it he was on ocean bound for the U.S.
My point being that the 500,000 number is just an "official numbers log" because the real number must have been much higher. My other point is that the very high average fertility rate of black women helped the AA population grow rapidly in time.
Mike, time for rehabilitation before you go stark raving mad.
Posts: 5492 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mike111: The 1910s were the last decade in American history in which immigration to the United States from Europe was unrestricted. The largest groups to immigrate during the 1910s were from eastern and southern Europe. (About 8,800,000 immigrants arrived in that period).
Many were probably Mulattoes who looked like this:
^^^^ when you call this girl "mulatto' do you mean she had one black parent and one white parent? yes or no, no games . Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
As many on this site say--you are nuts. What is it you're trying to say? Just a nutty, fantasy spinning person.
You have inculcated in your hallucinating mind that the black population in the U.S. grew mainly because of--"news of the weird"--blacks entering the U.S. from Europe.
Did they swim across? How did they enter Mike? Ellis Island? Plymouth Rock? Or by--LOL--helicopter? Where are the records Mike. Mike, you are on something. What is it? 'Shrooms?
MIke teaches that it wasn't 500,000, it was several million Black European Nobles that were deported by Europe.
That's why if you read the old so called "slave narratives" the so called "slaves" spoke perfect German, French and Italian and knew all about European history.
Then white people told them to shut up about that and pretend you're African
-Mike's world
Posts: 42930 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic