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.
Ghana is a surprising mention to me. I am from the U.S Virgin Islands and we have always known that most of the slaves that went to the THEN Danish West Indies (now the U.S Virgin Islands) came from Ghana which, at the time was under Danish control. Not sure how Jamaican slaves came from there unless the British had some kind of business relationship with the Danes in Africa.
And Spanish colonies in Africa were in the north. Spain never had much relation with most of Africa.
All my life I heard that the black slaves in spanish colonies were few and located in the Caribbean colonies.
It seems that UK and America have more information about the history of Spain that the Spanish themselves.
That's not true at all. Spain colonized Equitoreal Guinea. It's the only officially Spanish speaking country in Sub Saharan Africa.
The original English slave trade originated in Gold Coast (Modern Day Ghana). The next wave came from Bight of Biafra (Modern day Nigeria) and according to some record outnumbered those from the original wave.
The First ever slaves came from Spain though via an various African countries and records of that trade are even more scarce than the English slave trade.
Another factor in the similarities shared with Nigeria are that after the abolition of slavery many former slaves returned to Africa, primarily Nigeria. Which is why many of the customs of Jamaican born slaves were passed along to Nigerians.
Actually the Spanish and French documented their slave trade of Africans and African origins of African slaves in very well detailed manner. Many records of detail exist in Spain in many different institutions to this day.
For your information, Spain never had direct relation with slaves trade, spain gave licences to other countries(portugal, france, england, holland) to sell them in america.
Spain did have direct relation with the slave trade. It fluctuated between each colonial power over time over who would supply the slaves.
Spain also colonized many African countries and transported slaves back and forth between African regions and Spain.
Spain was very heavily involved with the slave trade. Spain even had a large number if black African slaves in Spain as well.
And Spanish colonies in Africa were in the north. Spain never had much relation with most of Africa.
All my life I heard that the black slaves in spanish colonies were few and located in the Caribbean colonies.
It seems that UK and America have more information about the history of Spain that the Spanish themselves.
Jamaica was a Spanish colony until 1655 and Spanish were even involved with Jamaica even after that.
The first African slaves in virtually all Caribbean regions and lands were brought there by the Spanish as early as the 1500s.
Spain would pick and choose which regions of Africa or what tribes they wanted to use for slave labor. When one group would rebel ornot follow authority or escape they'd ban importation of the rebellious group and choose slaves from other African tribal stocks.
That's the biggest difference between Africa and the Western Hemisphere. In African countries, usually a very tiny minority (usually the upper crust) is westernized, while in the Americas the majority of the population, regardless of race, ethnicity, etc; is mostly westernized. This is why most countries in North and South America are part of the West, although the most racist of people usually exclude the non-white American countries, even though culturally it doesn't makes sense to exclude them since their populations have an overwhelmingly Western culture, tradition, religion, language, etc.
When you take countries and judge how westernized they are in every aspect of importance (language, religion, cultural values, etc), the countries in the Western Hemisphere have more in common with their European former colonial metropolises than with either Africa, Asia or Native American societies. But, as I said before, many people have a hard time accepting a mostly westernized, say, black person as Western than they would a half westernized white person from South Africa or something along those lines. Its pure racism, if you ask me.
Can't rep you again but I mostly have to agree with you on this.
Make a comparison between Jamaican Patois and Nigerian Pidgin. We share many similarities.
Also when it comes to cuisine our food is heavily influenced by African cuisine, especially Nigerian. Look at the similarities between Mannish Water and ISI-EWU or Pepper Soup and Pepper Pot Soup. There are tons of other examples as well.
I play football (soccer) with alot of Nigerian's here in Boston and work with alot in the Medical Field as well and I find that at times we will be having a conversation and they break out into Pidgin I can pick up alot of the language. Similarly when I speak Patois they can understand it as well, especially on the football pitch.
Jamaica also has lots of Taino, Arawak, Carib and other Native American indigenous influences as well.
Really?
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.
