Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't have any problem verifying this link up. And haven't had for about the last 20 years. It's all over the place... I have black people tell me the Egyptians were black, Cleopatra was black, etc. etc. all the time.
On the other hand, the difference is that most likely if White Americans wanted to trace their origins, they can. I believe that around 70% of White Americans descend from people that came after the Civil War and around 80% of Blacks/African Americans descend from people that came before the Civil War. So, if this is indeed true, which it makes sense given European immigration from the late 19th century to mid 20th century, the roots of most White Americans are newer than this of Black Americans. In turn, documentation for the descendants of Whites in the US should be much easier to obtain.
But they benefitted immensely from the de jure Jim Crow of the South and the de facto Jim Crow of the North. When European immigration expanded in the 19th century they displaced the free blacks who accounted for a high % of the tradesmen. A scant generation or two blacks had lost those skills, because they were denied access to those jobs. With the industrialization of the North unions controlled by the white ethnic s kept blacks out of better paying positions. And of course it was know how racist the implementation of the GI Bill was.
So while most whites weren't directly involved in slavery they certainly benefited from the fact that this institution led to the creation of a subordinated class, which meant that illiterate peasants from Ireland and Sicily had privileges denied to blacks who by then had been in the country for 4-5 generations.
So don't tell me that whites didn't benefit from a system of extreme bigotry which kept blacks subordinated until around 50 years ago.
But they benefitted immensely from the de jure Jim Crow of the South and the de facto Jim Crow of the North. When European immigration expanded in the 19th century they displaced the free blacks who accounted for a high % of the tradesmen. A scant generation or two blacks had lost those skills, because they were denied access to those jobs. With the industrialization of the North unions controlled by the white ethnic s kept blacks out of better paying positions. And of course it was know how racist the implementation of the GI Bill was.
So while most whites weren't directly involved in slavery they certainly benefited from the fact that this institution led to the creation of a subordinated class, which meant that illiterate peasants from Ireland and Sicily had privileges denied to blacks who by then had been in the country for 4-5 generations.
So don't tell me that whites didn't benefit from a system of extreme bigotry which kept blacks subordinated until around 50 years ago.
The DNA doesn't support this really. I'm sure a few here and there got into the pool. There were however free Ethiopian seaman who migrated to NYC. I have a good friend whose great-grandfather was from Ethiopia.
In the 1800s and part of the 1900s, many African Americans were called "Ethiopians" by whites in the USA. although it was largely a misnomer, many used names like Ethiopians and Nubians because whites or other groups slapped that label on them.
And yes Ethiopians and Mozambiqueans and Sudanese were transported in both the Arab slave trades and Transatlantic and Pacific slave trades
Another thing I want to address is that being mixed and having "one drop" aren't necessarily the same thing. I don't understand why people use that term when talking about people of mixed backgrounds, because all people would be Black, if you take the one drop rule literally. It should have been aptly called the last known Black African ancestor rule, to be more precise.
Now you can go on with this, in essence, keep your Black/"sub Saharan" DNA behinds south of the Sahara thread.
Well some people call it the last known black African ancestor rule as well. It has a lot of names.
Keep in mind that more than 1/3 of U.S. white Americans have detectable black African ancestry.
The one drop rule is defunct. It was only legally practiced in sone Southern states from 1931 and 1967.
Mmmm. A few things they got wrong. One, mass slavery in Africa was not started by Europeans, but by Arabs. It doesn't excuse Europeans, but we can't have amnesia to the other slave trade routes. Christianity and Islam were imposed. Although Christianity had already been in Africa before Europeans. *Egypt was no more a White nation than it was *a Black nation. It was an African nation. And Cleopatra was basically Greek. *The rest I agree with. *Jim Crow and Apartheid would be to other big ones.
You are saying the same thing that I am almost exactly. But I also add: American Afrocentrists do not largely have ancestors that come from Egypt, so it is wrong for them to claim as much at the exclusion of their real ancestors.
Most so-called Afrocentric historians IGNORE 95% OF AFRICAN HISTORY.
Instead, they focus on the Mediterranean corner of Africa (Egypt), as if the majority of Africa possessed this civilization.
This is a very Eurocentric and ignorant way of looking at African Civilization. It ignores and dismisses 95% of Africa's history.
FACT: The overwhelming MAJORITY of African-Diaspora people are NOT from Egypt.
FACT: African peoples outside of Egypt are NOT worthless and undeserving of study
FACT: Egypt is only 10% of Africa's land mass. (Therefore, most Afro-centrists IGNORE 90% of the African continent!)
FACT: Egypt only contains 3% of the total population of Africa. Most Afrocentrists IGNORE the other 97% of people in Africa.
FACT: Africa had examples of civilization before Arabs, Europeans, and other outsider groups invaded and imposed colonialism.
FACT: The majority of Africans enslaved (by Europeans) were from WEST AFRICA (not Egypt).
Yes, Republican values have been replicated...they started in Greece and Rome and for over 2000 years were unique to Europe, with a few exceptions such as certain city states in the Nanda dynasty. That is history.
These values absolutely inform all western governments. The founding fathers of America argued whether America should have a Greek model or a Roman model.
European Union exists but that doesn't mean everything is fine and dandy? Have you travelled to Europe? Europe is just as divided as any other place in the world. Eastern Europeans are not liked by Northen Europeans at times and various groups of people like Roma/Romani Gypsies and religious Jews and ethnic Jews are still not like by many in certain parts of Europe and Slavs are often hated in certain parts of Europe.
Also the EU is not economically doing well. It's trying to bounce back. There are also some who view true European ness as Northern Europe and that others are not authentically European. This is a view held in the minds of some.
And there are still many or rather some European nations that are reluctant to join the EU or some that want to leave the EU.
Europe is just as internally divided as the next continent or other peoples.
Not to mention socioecomic and class divide among others. Just saying.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
