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.
The paper trail doesn't even necessarily support this. The paper trail, with some exceptions, largely shows points of departure where slavers left Africa with their human cargo. Many look at this and assume that this necessarily shows point of origin, but that's not necessarily the case. This is a point I've long made. At a minimum, DNA testing calls into question the accepted narrative in this matter as African American DNA testing is showing significantly different genetic relationships/ethnic makeup than the paper trail suggests. For instance, the paper trail suggests that African Americans don't have very much Akan ancestry, but DNA testing consistently shows otherwise. Also, while not discounting this point completely, I tell people to be careful about making the argument that population shifts and genetic mutations (for lack of a better word) may lead to "inaccurate" genetic DNA results. At the end of the day, for the purposes of genetic DNA research, African Americans are not that distantly removed from their African relatives and population centers really haven't drastically moved in Africa (in terms of ethnicity) to the point where we'd see these kinds of variations.
The big problem that I have with DNA testing is that it is based on small sample sizes. How accurate are these tests. Can one really use them to define separate groups, especially when arbitrary criteria like "Cameroon/Congo", or "Nigeria" is used? Indeed SW Nigeria was more integrated into Togo and Benin, and even SE Ghana than it is to SE Nigeria/Cameroon. Large rivers definitely formed solid boundaries.
In addition there was much ancient movement of peoples and ethnic identities probably emerged at a late stage. Indeed the Akan groupings emerged relatively late in the history of West Africa. Some might have migrated from further east in areas now connected to Mali, Liberia, or western Ivory Coast.
This is similar to the British Isles where DNA samples will show a very varied European ancestry which would then distort the ancestry of white Americans. Vanessa Williams has some Nordic ancestry showing up in her DNA. Was this a Nordic migrant? No more likely one from the British Isles with Viking ancestry.
The other problem with DNA testing is that its an upper middle class urban thing. How many of these samples include substantial numbers from the poorer Southern populations?
I prefer to use the slavevoyages paper trail and focus on regions of origin, and not on specific ethnicities. The peoples who lived on the coast traded with those inland and the slaves usually came from weaker groups which were dominated and subsumed within more powerful political entities.
The numbers of Yorubas in the Americas is greatly exaggerated. Only in the late stages (late 18th and 19th C) were substantial numbers of Yorubas enslaved. Prior to that those coming in from the Bight of Benin (Whydah and other ports) were those traded by the Yoruba and the Fon, the strongest slave trading groups.
So relatively few who traded in from the Akan regions (15%), but many from other regions might have similar DNA. In addition the Akan regions were the second largest source of slaves into the British Caribbean, and there are close ties (from both during and after slavery) linking the AA, and Anglophone Afro Caribbean populations.
At the end of the day which ever method that is used will only provide a general indication.
I am about 10% Southeastern African Banti (Mozambique) and about 10% from the Congo. 27% of me is from Benin/Togo.
I don't think most of the slaves in the Americas came from Angola. The African based religions you have in the Americas, Santeria, Candomble, Obeah, Shango, etc tend to be based on the religion of the Yorubas. Vodun is based on the religion of the people in the Dahomey area. So this implies large percentages of West Africans throughout the Caribbean and Latin America.
You cannot use survival of religions as criteria.
1. certain religions were more easily disguised in Roman Catholicism. Certainly orishas could be hidden among the Catholic saints.
2. Most of these religions are from Haiti, which ended slavery at an early stage of the settlement of African peoples. At the time of the revolution the vast majority of Haitians were African born, and those who became peasants were isolated until the mid 20th C when Haiti began to urbanize as its rural peasant economy deteriorated.
Other locations are in Cuba and Brazil where there was substantial 19th C migration. In fact over 80% of the slaves that were DIRECTLY imported into Cuba from Africa arrived after 1800. When slavery ended in Cuba and Brazil there were still substantial numbers of African born people. Contrast this with the USA where there would have been virtually none.
3. Protestant based societies like the USA offered few opportunities for overtly African traditions to survive. Note the use of OVERT, because there is much that is COVERTLY African which survives in many AA churches, even though this isn't recognized because it isn't overt. There is a reason why the black church is very different from the white church, even though in the South they belong to the same denominations.
80% of the slaves into Brazil came from Angola. The only region where people from the Bight of Benin (SW Nigeria/Togo/Benin) outnumbered the Angolans was in the Salvador region. There is lots of Angolan influence in Brazilian culture, inclusive of the very famous capoeira, and Brazilian Portuguese is speckled with Angolan derived words.
Trinidad has an Orisha tradition, with a more Protestant version also existing called the Shango Baptist. If we look at the source of slaves into Trinidad, St Vincent and Grenada (large % of the Afro Trini population being derived from those latter islands) the Bight of Biafra accounts for almost 40%, and the Bight of Benin for not even 5%. Yet its the Yoruba and not the Igbo/Ibibio religious traditions which are most visible.
The Angolans were imported mostly to Brazil so that should be the country with the most Angolan ancestry outside of Angola. Everywhere else not so much.
That doesn't mean that the Blacks in Brazil don't have significant West and Central African ancestries as well. After all West African religion and culture has heavy influences in Brazil, meaning they got plenty of people from Nigeria, Benin, Togo, etc. Ditto certain cultures from the Congo.
1. certain religions were more easily disguised in Roman Catholicism. Certainly orishas could be hidden among the Catholic saints.
Trinidad has an Orisha tradition, with a more Protestant version also existing called the Shango Baptist. If we look at the source of slaves into Trinidad, St Vincent and Grenada (large % of the Afro Trini population being derived from those latter islands) the Bight of Biafra accounts for almost 40%, and the Bight of Benin for not even 5%. Yet its the Yoruba and not the Igbo/Ibibio religious traditions which are most visible.
You can use the survival of religions as criteria. Clearly enough people from certain cultures were brought over to the Americans for their religions to survive. As for historical records of slaves, I seriously doubt the primary sources kept accurate records as to the ethnicity and sources of their slaves. Later historians often put theories on things that they cannot know.
Overtly African traditions survived in Louisiana due to it's Catholic heritage (another state with a heavy concentrate of Black Catholics is Maryland).
In the folk tales from certain African American communities in the Protestant states, aspects of the orishas survived. People still talk about hoodoo and still went to a priest or priestess. Things varied tremendously from location to location.
Those are fair concerns. I'll say this, though: while the issue with sample size was more significant as DNA testing first got off to a start, apparently the big companies are more confident with the science behind DNA testing today and believe the sample sizes are sufficiently large to make the estimates they do make. Also, as I explained before, I don't think "Nigeria" or "Cameroon/Congo" are necessarily arbitrary groupings, but rather that they take into account various populations that dominate within those areas. The final groupings didn't come out of thin air, but rather are based on genetic similarities, as seen through testing, within and across regions after the companies began building their initial DNA samples within Africa for comparison purposes. That, to me, matters just as much, if not more, than certain mappings.
And, sure, there was ancient movement of peoples, which led to certain group identifies emerging at a late stage. But, and this is true for the Akan certainly, they were in the areas they are in today at the time that the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade began; I'm of Akan ancestry and this is, at least, part of our oral history. For instance, Bonoman, was an Akan kingdom that existed from the 11th through 19th centuries; Akwamu was an Akan state that thrived in the 17th and 18th centuries; the Ashanti Empire existed from roughly 1700-1900; and the Fantes have been along the coastal areas of what is modern day Ghana, etc. since at least the 16th century. While this is relatively "late" in the history of West Africa, these groups have dominated in the areas they are in today for long enough to form a solid base of genetic comparison with the descendants of those groups taken to the new world.
As for the larger issue of migration, even those whose ancestors have long lived in the Akan regions (I've had other relatives tested, which provides an anecdotal point of comparison/reference) don't always show up as 100% Ghana/Ivory Coast in, say Ancestry.com. Rather, there is diversity even within their results, which points to some of the variation we're discussing now (although, if my example is any indication, there certainly one "region" certainly dominates among samples taken from within a region). Still, these results do what they are intended to: show the strongest genetic similarities between black Americans and African peoples who have been within particular regions of West Africa for many generations. I say that, even taking into account migration patterns, the DNA testing is helpful to linking these various groups as it shows where people are located today who share significant genetic similarities with those of the African diaspora. At the end of the day, I'm sure there are genetic similarities across all of the groups in the region, but these testing companies have apparently identified a method to distinguish between some of these differences, hence the varied groupings as opposed to only one large grouping.
Also, DNA testing is, as you write, available largely to those who are not poor. That said, this isn't such a problem to me, as far as accuracy and diversity of results go, as the middle class (and higher) black Americans, etc. who are taking these tests come from the same bloodline (and are often no more than one generation, if that, removed from poorer relatives) as those who cannot afford the results. Indeed, black Americans who can afford to take this test are brothers, sisters, sons, daughters, cousins, etc. of those who cannot afford to take the test.
I think the slavevoyages resource is useful to understanding a lot about our shared histories and ancestry, but I use it in conjunction with DNA testing to achieving this purpose. Whatever one uses, though, its important to ensure that one doesn't arrive at conclusions that aren't necessarily supported by either source (i.e. that ports of departure show points of origin or that DNA testing reveals more than it actually does). Also, and this is me hypothesizing more than anything now, as we see how people are when it comes to money and riches even today, it would not shock me if many, many people who were not "supposed" to be included in particular slave voyages to the new world at a certain time were (i.e. Akans kidnapping other Akans, which wouldn't be so far-fetched given that not all Akan groups were friendly with each other during this time, and selling them to slavers from other groups, etc.). At the very least, the DNA results make me question what I would otherwise gleam from the slavevoyages routes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caribny
The big problem that I have with DNA testing is that it is based on small sample sizes. How accurate are these tests. Can one really use them to define separate groups, especially when arbitrary criteria like "Cameroon/Congo", or "Nigeria" is used? Indeed SW Nigeria was more integrated into Togo and Benin, and even SE Ghana than it is to SE Nigeria/Cameroon. Large rivers definitely formed solid boundaries.
In addition there was much ancient movement of peoples and ethnic identities probably emerged at a late stage. Indeed the Akan groupings emerged relatively late in the history of West Africa. Some might have migrated from further east in areas now connected to Mali, Liberia, or western Ivory Coast.
This is similar to the British Isles where DNA samples will show a very varied European ancestry which would then distort the ancestry of white Americans. Vanessa Williams has some Nordic ancestry showing up in her DNA. Was this a Nordic migrant? No more likely one from the British Isles with Viking ancestry.
The other problem with DNA testing is that its an upper middle class urban thing. How many of these samples include substantial numbers from the poorer Southern populations?
I prefer to use the slavevoyages paper trail and focus on regions of origin, and not on specific ethnicities. The peoples who lived on the coast traded with those inland and the slaves usually came from weaker groups which were dominated and subsumed within more powerful political entities.
The numbers of Yorubas in the Americas is greatly exaggerated. Only in the late stages (late 18th and 19th C) were substantial numbers of Yorubas enslaved. Prior to that those coming in from the Bight of Benin (Whydah and other ports) were those traded by the Yoruba and the Fon, the strongest slave trading groups.
So relatively few who traded in from the Akan regions (15%), but many from other regions might have similar DNA. In addition the Akan regions were the second largest source of slaves into the British Caribbean, and there are close ties (from both during and after slavery) linking the AA, and Anglophone Afro Caribbean populations.
At the end of the day which ever method that is used will only provide a general indication.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 01-06-2015 at 06:15 AM..
You can use the survival of religions as criteria. Clearly enough people from certain cultures were brought over to the Americans for their religions to survive. As for historical records of slaves, I seriously doubt the primary sources kept accurate records as to the ethnicity and sources of their slaves. Later historians often put theories on things that they cannot know.
Overtly African traditions survived in Louisiana due to it's Catholic heritage (another state with a heavy concentrate of Black Catholics is Maryland).
In the folk tales from certain African American communities in the Protestant states, aspects of the orishas survived. People still talk about hoodoo and still went to a priest or priestess. Things varied tremendously from location to location.
The big problem that I have with DNA testing is that it is based on small sample sizes. How accurate are these tests. Can one really use them to define separate groups, especially when arbitrary criteria like "Cameroon/Congo", or "Nigeria" is used? Indeed SW Nigeria was more integrated into Togo and Benin, and even SE Ghana than it is to SE Nigeria/Cameroon. Large rivers definitely formed solid boundaries.
In addition there was much ancient movement of peoples and ethnic identities probably emerged at a late stage. Indeed the Akan groupings emerged relatively late in the history of West Africa. Some might have migrated from further east in areas now connected to Mali, Liberia, or western Ivory Coast.
This is similar to the British Isles where DNA samples will show a very varied European ancestry which would then distort the ancestry of white Americans. Vanessa Williams has some Nordic ancestry showing up in her DNA. Was this a Nordic migrant? No more likely one from the British Isles with Viking ancestry.
The other problem with DNA testing is that its an upper middle class urban thing. How many of these samples include substantial numbers from the poorer Southern populations?
I prefer to use the slavevoyages paper trail and focus on regions of origin, and not on specific ethnicities. The peoples who lived on the coast traded with those inland and the slaves usually came from weaker groups which were dominated and subsumed within more powerful political entities.
The numbers of Yorubas in the Americas is greatly exaggerated. Only in the late stages (late 18th and 19th C) were substantial numbers of Yorubas enslaved. Prior to that those coming in from the Bight of Benin (Whydah and other ports) were those traded by the Yoruba and the Fon, the strongest slave trading groups.
So relatively few who traded in from the Akan regions (15%), but many from other regions might have similar DNA. In addition the Akan regions were the second largest source of slaves into the British Caribbean, and there are close ties (from both during and after slavery) linking the AA, and Anglophone Afro Caribbean populations.
At the end of the day which ever method that is used will only provide a general indication.
Though most companies use certain customers as part of their reference panel (based on certain criteria) they also include specific reference panels that have nothing to do with the people who pay to get DNA tested.
I think at this point in we are many years into DNA testing and things have become a lot more accurate over those years, of course things will get better as we get more samples. There are some projects specifically trying to get more African reference samples to better understand the genetic mixture there. Keep in mind that African DNA is the most diverse so even with fewer samples than some other regions there are already more distinction and we'll simply get better ideas on what that all means as we progress.
The biggest problem with paper trail of slave ships is that only shows where the slaves were shipped from. Historically we know that the African tribes enslaved eachother from wide regions and obviously for those slaves to be shipped they had to eventually end up in a port and shipped out. That doesn't tell us anything about what happened before they were shipped out. For example knowing X American had an immigrant that arrived in the port of New York tells us a limited amount of where they ended up. A lot of people arrived in a port and immediately went out from their.
DNA on the other hands gives us direct comparisons to modern populations... The better the DNA samples get and the better we understand the historical concept it will simply get better.
I don't know that there is any evidence that "hoodoo" has Yoruba origins, and it is more related to the obeah of the English speaking Caribbean, in that it is a source or sorcery, rather than being an organized religion.
Many of the African religious practices which survive in NOLA come from Haiti, and not necessarily from the enslaved peoples who were taken there.
I was very specific about why using religion as a criteria for determining the origins is inaccurate.
1. Some African religions more easily fit into the local colonial culture than did others. Catholicism was easier for certain of these religions to hide than others.
2. Some countries had more recent arrivals within their population with substantial African born peoples once slavery ended. It would have been hard for specific and overtly religious African practices to have survived in the USA, given that massive importation of slaves ended during the British colonial era. For Cuba, Haiti, and Brazil it is a whole different story, with the British and French colonies lying in between these two extremes.
While you are quite correct that specific ethnicities cannot be determined, what can be determined are the regions where these slaves were loaded from. Given that these ports drew from specific areas one can figure out who was involved in these pools and who wasn't.
In the case of Cuba, where the vast majority of slaves were imported after 1800, it is quite easy to determine that over 80% of the slaves came from regions other than the Bight of Benin, and not all slaves from the Bight of Benin were Yoruba. And yet the dominance of Yoruba religious practices among the African religious retentions.
We know this because Yorubas were not loaded in Kongo/Angola. Bight of Biafra, or along the Sierra Leone/Liberia regions. In fact the largest source of slaves was from the Kongo region (30%), and the second largest source came from the Bight of Benin,
So while we don't know for certain how many Yorubas made it over we do know that the vast majority of the enslaved peoples taken to Cuba were NOT Yoruba. Specific characteristics of the Yoruba (and related Fon) religions allowed easier absorption than was the case for religions from the Bight of Biafra and the Kongo regions. This even though 4X as many slaves taken to Cuba were sourced from those areas when compared with the Bight of Benin.
The biggest problem with paper trail of slave ships is that only shows where the slaves were shipped from.
DNA on the other hands gives us direct comparisons to modern populations... The better the DNA samples get and the better we understand the historical concept it will simply get better.
The Ancestry.com DNA samples cite broad, and often unrelated regions (Cameroon to Congo). These are no more accurate than are the documents in determining specific ethnic origins.
I suggest that people focus on probably regions of origin and quite pretending that they are the "descendant of the Yoruba tribe". These groups have inter mixed with each other and the DNA samples don't focus on specific ethnic origins in Africa either.
So I am 29% Benin/Togo. What does that mean given that this description doesn't make historical sense? Parts of Benin were integrated into what we would now call SW Nigeria. Parts of Togo are integrated into Ghana east of the Volta River, which is an important dividing line between various groups. So I have no way of knowing whether this reflects Ewe, Fon, Yoruba or some other ethnicity, or whether these ancestors were dragged in from what is now Burkina Faso.
The Ancestry.com DNA samples cite broad, and often unrelated regions (Cameroon to Congo). These are no more accurate than are the documents in determining specific ethnic origins.
I suggest that people focus on probably regions of origin and quite pretending that they are the "descendant of the Yoruba tribe". These groups have inter mixed with each other and the DNA samples don't focus on specific ethnic origins in Africa either.
So I am 29% Benin/Togo. What does that mean given that this description doesn't make historical sense? Parts of Benin were integrated into what we would now call SW Nigeria. Parts of Togo are integrated into Ghana east of the Volta River, which is an important dividing line between various groups. So I have no way of knowing whether this reflects Ewe, Fon, Yoruba or some other ethnicity, or whether these ancestors were dragged in from what is now Burkina Faso.
Well DNA is far more of a better guess to use as a starting point than where they sailed from since African tribes conquered and moved slaves over different regions (all that were sailed out obviously ending up on the coast somewhere).
Also keep in mind like most European Americans (or European sides of African American's heritage) they are almost always more than just one ethnicity. In the US people mixed heavily and even on the other side of the ocean they did as well. If someone comes up 23% German/France then it's entirely likely they have some German or French ancestry (even if it's it a bit far back) and this also can reveal slightly more ancient DNA admixture as well, but that doesn't remove it.
African Americans I would expect would be a combination of multiple DNA regions and tribes with a few exceptions maybe. You're not trying to nail down on match but multiple matches to modern populations which give you an idea of your ancient population matches.
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.
