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.
Mel, you sound like an interracial dating propagandist . You sound like you also don't like black people very much either. I mean you really have a lot to say about this topic. I find mixed raced people, especially who want "mixed" to be a real race, are some of the racist people on the planet.
Don't mean to get in your business but you should do a DNA Ancestry test. You may hate the results.
The issue isn't about what people call themselves. This issue is whether all people, regardless of identity, are assured of decent access to opportunity, without bias against them by others.
I am 80% African (DNA Ancestry) and self identify as black. My mother is about 65% African and is considered mixed. She really doesn't care much of this topic. given its emotional history in the Caribbean.
The issue is that some one looking like me and some one looking like my mother should have equal access to opportunity. This hasn't always been the case.
You know Michael Manley, the former Prime Minister of Jamaica, said that in the USA they would call him a light skinned black (high yellow), in Jamaica brown, and in Brazil white. At the end of the day he is still Michael Manley. The point isn't what he would be called. The point is that in the Americas there is a sad history which makes these classifications socially significant, and have been used to exclude, even in the USA where he would have had privileged access when compared to a darker black man.
You will have to define what a mulatto is before you get away with claiming that this was what most slaves were. Note that the vast majority of whites, even in the South, were not directly involved with the slaves. What I also notice is that most of the photographs of slaves in the Civil War show a people who seem more darker and "African" than todays black Americans are,
Also by the mid 17th century the maternal definition of slavery was replaced by a race definition. Before then it was possible for both black and white slaves to buy their way out, and indeed it might be more accurate to call them indentures. That changed around the mid/late 17th century.
By the 18th century, while not all blacks were slaves, almost all slaves were black/mulatto. The whites had bought their way out, and their kids were born free.
Doesn't matter whether the Willie Lynch letter was a hoax or not. Facts are that the pattern of slavery changed in the USA to one practiced in Barbados and much of what stated in that letter about the need to undermine the family and to weaken links between the males and the females is true. By encouraging men to form tight bonds with women meant that they were less prolific in "breeding" other women, thus reducing the numbers of slaves born on a plantation.
The reason why the USA only got about 6% of the slaves directly from Africa is that they got substantial numbers from the Caribbean, when both were British colonies. About 1/3 of the slaves were brought in from the Caribbean.
Also the focus of the US plantation was to "grow" their own slaves. The focus in the Caribbean and Brazil was to work them to death (7 years) and replace them with others. So we have Barbados which imported 600,000 slaves, but even today its population is less then 300,000.
I don't see why we are putting a lot of stock in DNA tests in this thread to group. Genetically, the differences between some groups just rely on some slight physical features like nose size. All in all, I believe it's less than <.01.
@melis
I disagree. Race and class are two different things in this country, though they both play into each other in terms of how others perceive you.
I also disagree about Latin america not being racist. Indigenous groups like the Mixtec's are still discriminated against along with Latinos of African descent with black phenotypes.
Black American culture did not come from Africa. There is no evidence of African traditions, even West Africa traditions with black Americans. Their culture is influenced by Irish and Scottish lower class, who were the basis of their culture in America. The very fact that tribes were deliberately mixed up was to make sure that the culture was not left in tact in America
I know you truly belive this, but I would like to say that you are incorrect. I was in a relationship with a guy from Central African guy who used to tell me that he recognized various things about Black Americans that reminded him Congolese culture. He was actually stunned by the similaries when he came to the U.S. I have met people from some West African countries who have said the same. Black Americans did not simply fall out of the sky and end up on American plantations. Caucasions needed a labor force to build up this land, and since they were too lazy to work the land themselves, they came to the African continent, and took the labor literally by force. The enslaved Africans brought their various cultures with them. This idea that the Irish and Scottish lower class is a basis of Black American culture is like saying that Black Americans are a creation of Caucasions, as if our entire existence in this world begins with American slavery. That is profoundly disrespectful and amazingly arrogant. Try again.
I know you truly belive this, but I would like to say that you are incorrect. I was in a relationship with a guy from Central African guy who used to tell me that he recognized various things about Black Americans that reminded him Congolese culture. He was actually stunned by the similaries when he came to the U.S. I have met people from some West African countries who have said the same. Black Americans did not simply fall out of the sky and end up on American plantations. Caucasions needed a labor force to build up this land, and since they were too lazy to work the land themselves, they came to the African continent, and took the labor literally by force. The enslaved Africans brought their various cultures with them. This idea that the Irish and Scottish lower class is a basis of Black American culture is like saying that Black Americans are a creation of Caucasions, as if our entire existence in this world begins with American slavery. That is profoundly disrespectful and amazingly arrogant. Try again.
Africans see similarities between their cultures and a lot of places. They'll say the same thing to a British person, an arabic person, and Indian person, it doesn't matter. They love pointing out similarities between their culture and some distant culture halfway across the world, but refuse to admit that their are any similarities between them and a tribe that that's not even 50 miles away. Ask them about some rival tribe, because one thing I know about Africa, is that Africans always have a rival tribe. Now go and ask him if his tribe have any similaritis with the other tribe. He won't admit to it. Even though they are
1) In the same continent
2) Lived no more than 50 miles away from each other for centuries
3) Probably has historical ties
But they won't admit it. EVER! In a million years. Africans are good for that though anyway. They really like imposing cultural superiority over American blacks. I hear it all the time from Africans. That is why I'm far less phased by it, because if I had so many similaritis with them, then I could be apart of their network and community. See how quickly they're distance themselves from their spiritual "black American brothers and sisters". Africans are cool, but they are some of the biggest hypocrites you'll ever meet. Take anything an African says about blacks and culture at face value.
For the record. I've not only dated 3 women from Africa, one who had parens from Africa, and have an uncle who married a woman from Africa. I'm quite familiar with various African cultures, not just one. Dated 2 women from Liberia, one from Nigeria, and one Kenya lady who had parents from Kenya. Plus I'm a big taxi rider, so I run into a lot of East Africans. And I've worked with a ton of West Africans in the past.
So I know that culture pretty well. Trust me, there aren't any similarities. All you need to do is read a book. Or actually you should go over there. I plan on going to Africa sometime in the next 10 years.
ICaucasions needed a labor force to build up this land, and since they were too lazy to work the land themselves, they came to the African continent, and took the labor literally by force.
"Some independent slave merchants did in fact stage raids on unprotected African villages and kidnap and enslave Africans. Most professional slave traders, however, set up bases along the west African coast where they purchased slaves from Africans in exchange for firearms and other goods. Before the end of the seventeenth century, England, France, Denmark, Holland, and Portugal had all established slave trading posts on the west African coast.
Yet to simply say that Europeans purchased people who had already been enslaved seriously distorts historical reality. While there had been a slave trade within Africa prior to the arrival of Europeans, the massive European demand for slaves and the introduction of firearms radically transformed West and Central African society. A growing number of Africans were enslaved for petty debts or minor criminal or religious offenses or following unprovoked raids on unprotected villages. An increasing number of religious wars broke out with the goal of capturing slaves. European weapons made it easier to capture slaves.
Some African societies -- like Benin in southern Nigeria -- refused to sell slaves. Others, like Dahomey, appear to have specialized in enslavement. Still other societies, like Asante, in present-day Ghana, and the Yoruba in western Nigeria, engaged in wars that produced as many as half of all eighteenth and early nineteenth century slaves.
In western and central Africa, many new commercial states, merchants, and traders, chronically short of capital, thrived by enslaving some people and selling others abroad. Birth rates often exceeded agriculture's capacity to feed the population. Drought, famine, or periods of violent conflict might lead a ruler or a merchant to sell slaves. In addition, many rulers sold slaves in order to acquire the trade goods--textiles, alcohol, and other rare imports--that were necessary to secure the loyalty of their subjects.
In the earliest years, slaves tended to come from coastal areas. Over time, the source moved further into the African interior. Many Africans retained females and sold off males. About two-thirds of the slaves sent to the New World were male."
Demand for slaves influenced supply, but it's not exactly accurate to say that "Caucasians" took the labor "literally by force." They bought it.
The plantation system used the largest number of slaves, because it was labor intensive. However, the majority of whites (75%) owned no slaves and plenty of them worked their own farms. In addition, many whites (and blacks) arrived in the colonies as indentured labor. Of those who owned slaves, 15% owned 6 or less. So I think your concept that whites were lazy and that was the reason for slavery is weak.
This slicing and dicing of African American ancestry is truly unnecessary. The average African American has between 20-25% European ancestry....that is 1/5 or 1/4 of the ancestors are of European descent.
The actor Don Cheadle (who is undeniably darker than the average African American) has 19% European ancestry per his DNA admixture testing. Also, Dr. Henry Louis Gates himself (who happens to be brown skinned) has 50% European ancestry.
I have noticed some posters in this forum claiming that the average Afro-American is "very mixed". Some have even claimed to be as mixed as the average Dominican, for example. How true is this? I know the majority of African-Americans are not purely black, but are they really close to being 50/50 mulattos like Dominicans, or are African-Americans just predominantly black people with a little bit of admixture?
we as a whole are not "mixed" we simply have various admixture. there is a big difference between the two. what people on this earth have no admixture?
I have noticed that on just about EVERY forum that is has a mixture of different people, subjects concerning Afro-American people usually have the most replys. I did not know we were so popular and mysterious! not sure if I should be prideful about this or insulted....
This slicing and dicing of African American ancestry is truly unnecessary. The average African American has between 20-25% European ancestry....that is 1/5 or 1/4 of the ancestors are of European descent.
The actor Don Cheadle (who is undeniably darker than the average African American) has 19% European ancestry per his DNA admixture testing. Also, Dr. Henry Louis Gates himself (who happens to be brown skinned) has 50% European ancestry.
Why is this so difficult to comprehend?
This.
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.
