U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-26-2018, 03:19 PM
Status: "RIP Solomon Tekah" (set 8 days ago)
 
1,223 posts, read 580,757 times
Reputation: 1183

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni View Post
You're right. They always say if you want to hide something from people, put it in a book. I was looking at the 1890 census form and find it interesting it was destroyed in a fire. There are no accidents. A lot happens in 20 years. That census was the only one where there was a page per family. It would be invaluable to research. They had to get rid of of because it would have allowed us to connect the dots. I've read docs with a general tally of the population in Mississippi, separated by race. "Coloreds" outnumbered the whites. How valuable that info would be to link pieces together. But they didn't want that, of course.
Exactly. This video delves into the census back then
https://youtu.be/_AXk0ZYHdWM

This video is gold here.
https://youtu.be/KKdbZglu1jU
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-26-2018, 03:53 PM
 
4,434 posts, read 4,417,168 times
Reputation: 3500
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni View Post
Just to give you an idea about what happened in America's early days, here's a site with some photos of members of the Wampanaog tribe. You'll note than they either look like African-Americans, or they look like mulattoes:

ManyHoops.com - Historic photographs of Wampanoag people and places


If you scroll down to the photo of James Mye, you can see he is a black man. He had been an indentured servant but the courts considered his treatment similar to slavery. If you saw this photo by itself, you'd probably assume he was a black man.


There were laws in the Virginia colony that hint at what was occurring during that time. A few that I found interesting:


A law lumping black slaves in with Native Americans. Remember, the "colored" designation on the census included everyone not considered "white":


Let's note that "Moores" are dark-skinned people as well. Turks are Asian. So there were a variety of groups in the colonies, which would help explain the look of the people we normally think of when we think "Native American". And finally, here's part of an interview regarding a census of the people in the Virginia colony:


So there you have it, folks. Yes, there were some slaves imported from Africa, but there were also slaves who came by land - Native Americans. And they didn't all look like the mestizo Native Americans we think of when we hear "Indian". They looked like the black people you see today. Notice the guy said there were more than 40k people in Virginia, but there were only two thousand black slaves and six thousand Christians who were only in the colony temporarily. That means thirty-two thousand people were either native to the area or foreigners who settled the land. Immigration wasn't much different today than yesterday. You had to have MONEY to uproot yourself and start a new life. From the interview we see that there weren't many Irish in the colony either. And when they Irish came they were poorer. They were the first "black" people before slaves/slave descendants were placed on the bottom of the caste. Just think: if the colonizers were taking Indians as slaves, why are only African-Americans viewed as slave descendants today? Where are all the former mestizo Native American slaves (in pictures)? This is why the made race categories. To keep black-skinned people on the bottom forever.

Like I mentioned in my other post, yes, there were Africans imported here. But not as many as we are led to believe. A lot of those people came by land because they were already here. As usual, another people hijacked their identity.
Native Americans do not have kinky Afro texture hair, as well as those photos are black and white photos of elders because of that your seeing racial ambiguous features that could pass for white, black, native or Asian.

Most black Americans are mix but predominantly African ancestry on average most African Americans are 60 to 90% African Ancestry, but let make it clear most black Americans are brown and dark skin and do not like any one in those pics and clearly resembles people of west Africa. Second even black Americans like myself is who light skin lighter then those in West African most of my family is dark and do, an entire black American family that just light skin is rare. Most black Americans families dark and brown tone with a few light skins. Non of the groups your describing are as dark as African descendants, only some Indian "India" and Some groups in the South Pacific are. The groups of people your describing are dark as tan or light tan not dark as in Black Americans. It like when white people say "tall dark and handsome" and they end up talking about some one white with tan.

Also black wasn't even a popular term for African descents until the 1960s. Terms like Negro and Color was issued. Native Americans were never called black people you mean "color" was a term that group minority of different backgrounds not Black people, Native Americans were never called black people. In the 60s "black" became a popular identification of African American over the term Negro. Identifying as black is actually very recent thing related to the whole black arts movement of the 60s. James Brown even a made song from this.

Your post is try to present like there was "some" African slaves and most was Native American........ No It's the opposite there were "some" native Americans that mix in with the white and black populations but the overwhelming majority of black Americans ancestry comes from West Africa. In fact there more mix with European than Native American only a small percentage of black Americans have even match to claim Native American ancestry.

Also your whole notion of immigration is off, historically there was racial quotas on Immigration major immigration to the US didn't really start until the 1820 and this was Britain letter was massive waves from Irlend, Germany, Italy then Scandinavian and Eastern Europe, The was limited immigrates from China and Japan but later there were racist law that stop it early, there wasn't mass in migration from Latin America or Mexico until the 50s.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2018, 04:49 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 2,034,852 times
Reputation: 5210
You have a lot of text. I'll read it later. "White" Native Americans do not have kinky hair because they are not as old as "black" Native Americans. NAs on reservations are mixed. Black natives are either not recognized or have their land taken away. Black natives are "African-American" the vast majority of whom lost their culture eons ago and were only told they "got Indian in their family."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-26-2018, 05:15 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 2,034,852 times
Reputation: 5210
Quote:
Originally Posted by 80s_kid View Post
Exactly. This video delves into the census back then
https://youtu.be/_AXk0ZYHdWM

This video is gold here.
https://youtu.be/KKdbZglu1jU

Thank you! Re: the second video. What I found interesting is I have photos of some elders who I only have first names for. This is on a side of my family where we were sharecroppers. I was actually pissed off a few weeks ago because they (not necessarily my relatives but other families that lived there) got KICKED OFF the farm and guess what? White people got moved in during the Depression! The government took pictures of it and everything. I was soooooo . So our people had to move so white people (who probably weren't interested in sharecropping before) could be taken care of. I appreciate a lot of what our government does, but it also does some effed up things. I really like the old Farm Security Administration program where they had photogs take pictures of communities across America. Although I'm positive there was a hidden agenda, it produced useful documents for history. After checking out some of those Wampanoag photos on Facebook, I noticed quite a few of them had captions like, "Photo taken shortly before so and so died". And in one photograph you could see the photographer taking a picture of the people. I remember I took a class in school and they said the reason people didn't smile in photos back then is because it was a serious thing...but I'm now wondering if some of those photos were staged for propaganda purposes. I know I sound looney, but I say that because we have professional photos of the side of my family that was supposedly sharecroppers. I'm like...If you all were sharecroppers, how the heck could you afford to take pictures??? This side of the family also had a lot of land so there's a story there. But there was known poverty on this side. I have always been puzzled about how they could afford those photos. They're wearing nice clothes. Either they weren't as poor as we were led to believe, or my second theory is they were staged...like the aboriginal Americans were made to put on "English" clothes and take photos in them, while the $5 Indians took photos in traditional Native American dress to promote the idea that they are the aboriginal people of America. It sounds silly to us, but please believe these governments plan things well in advance. The footage of those soldiers finding the cemetery reminded me of something. I don't necessarily think this has anything to do with the government but is interesting nonetheless. The headstone of one of my ancestors has been removed from FindAGrave. This person was a slave, so I was shocked they had a headstone at all. The removal happened sometime after I ordered records from NARA. I can't pinpoint when, but I can't imagine too many people looking for this particular ancestor, so why was it taken down? They keep erasing and rewriting our history, but the determined will get to the truth.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2018, 06:58 AM
Status: "RIP Solomon Tekah" (set 8 days ago)
 
1,223 posts, read 580,757 times
Reputation: 1183
Nah, I don't think it sounds crazy but you know that these other folks think it sounds off but it's hard to dispute what Dane Callaway and Warhorse are saying...there's also painting and figurines depicting "African" looking people...the only way you can tell their point of origin is by the way they dress (they are called Four Quarters of the Globe Cheese porcelain figurines and they match up to numerous descriptions made by European explores early on).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2018, 12:39 PM
 
4,434 posts, read 4,417,168 times
Reputation: 3500
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni View Post
You have a lot of text. I'll read it later. "White" Native Americans do not have kinky hair because they are not as old as "black" Native Americans. NAs on reservations are mixed. Black natives are either not recognized or have their land taken away. Black natives are "African-American" the vast majority of whom lost their culture eons ago and were only told they "got Indian in their family."
Ok this just hit looney their no such thing as black and white native Americans, dark tone native Americans are tan, not as dark as most black Americans, native Americans do not have Afro texture hair. If Native American appear dark it's cause the terrible early photography.

There are some black Americans that do have some native Americans ancestry but it a small percentage of there ancestry, your falsely trying to make it seem their black Americans more Native American then African. Which is completely false.

Most black Americans are mix but predominantly black between 60 to 90% African Ancestry, again most American are dark and medium brown skin and clearly resemble those in West African there a minority of black Americans called "light skin" that look mix compared to your average West African but then most "light skin" belong to families that on average darker then them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2018, 01:22 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 2,034,852 times
Reputation: 5210
Thanks for your input.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2018, 05:05 PM
Status: "RIP Solomon Tekah" (set 8 days ago)
 
1,223 posts, read 580,757 times
Reputation: 1183
Chiatldal, your deeming people looney is very premature because you don't have all of the facts. I think treemoni was referring to the $5 Indians (correct me if I were wrong).

Regarding your points on color, again, I don't feel you have all of the facts. I have a book by Jack D. Forbes called Africans and Native Americans and he has the accounts of the early explorers who came into contact with the indigenous population of the Americas and they knew what hues they saw.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2018, 06:07 PM
 
3,774 posts, read 2,034,852 times
Reputation: 5210
Thank you 80s kid. Evaluating people by skin color is the worst indicator. Black people come in all shades and there was mixing, hence the variations among us. But if you look at paintings from Egypt's early periods you'll see a lot of the people had hair that looked like AA hair, and they were also "red" in skin tone. Just check the artwork. I also just realized how many black people call each other "redbone" or "red". Malcom X comes to mind. "Houma" means red. It's interesting that Houma, LA's county seat is "Terrebonne". Does that mean "earth bone"? What color is the earth, generally?

I don't know anything for certain. All I'm saying is, the stuff is interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-27-2018, 06:55 PM
 
Location: Georgia, USA
23,409 posts, read 28,257,722 times
Reputation: 28995
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni View Post
Thank you 80s kid. Evaluating people by skin color is the worst indicator. Black people come in all shades and there was mixing, hence the variations among us. But if you look at paintings from Egypt's early periods you'll see a lot of the people had hair that looked like AA hair, and they were also "red" in skin tone. Just check the artwork. I also just realized how many black people call each other "redbone" or "red". Malcom X comes to mind. "Houma" means red. It's interesting that Houma, LA's county seat is "Terrebonne". Does that mean "earth bone"? What color is the earth, generally?

I don't know anything for certain. All I'm saying is, the stuff is interesting.
Terrebonne means "good earth" in French.

Redbone:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Redbone_(Ethnicity)

The word may be derived from "red eboe"

How the “Red Igbos” Came to Jamaica | The Jamaican Blogs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Africa
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top