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 slavery in the US was a lot about sticking it to free market white American labor for what is estimated to be about a 5% better margin. In principle it is kind of the same today with illegal alien and immigrant workers.
France is pretty close to 13%. Current estimates is around 6-9% Black. It'll probably be around 13% by 2040, if you include mixed people.
6-9% is not 13.4%.
And by 2040, the black population percentage of America will be even higher.
America turned 300K slaves into 42 million black American decedents, who would otherwise never been born in this country, and liberals are really mad about it. They're mad that this tragic event of African kings selling slaves has a silver lining that benefits 42 million black Americans today whose ancestors landed in the world's richest country by pure chance.
Someone already proved the science to show this is objectively wrong. They got raped, and that's why black Americans largely have 20% white admixture in them. Not all of it was rape, but we are talking the vast majority it's likely 90-99% of folks who have 4 African American grandparents.
"African-American" grandparents. They don't have the DNA profile of all the grandparents to start with. The 20%-26% white admixture is the current average level and is the product of all their ancestry to date, which is mostly from white mother/black father parings in more recent decades.
I was born in the United States and my parents are from South America. I'm of biracial ancestry on both of my parents side. I also have some 23andme. My dad side paternal lineage is European, and his maternal lineage if African. My mom who is mostly European looking physically. Her maternal lineage is African. My family is from Colombia btw. My paternal lineage is Scottish. My great great great grand father is Scottish. He migrated to Colombia during the years of independence. He married a slave woman and produced a family. His kids the males ended up matting with black women, and mixed race women. While the women ended up with mixed race men or white men for preference. My mom side. My mom great grand mother is from Barbados who married a bajan white man and moved to Colombia during the end of the 19th century. Her child ended up marrying a Spaniard which gave birth to my grand mother. While my mom's father family is from Brazil and emigrated to Colombia. He was of mostly European background with some afro Brazilian Nad native ancestry. From what I can tell. These women in my ancestry were not raped by white men. However I it is safe to say that the black women in lineage preferred white or biracial mixed men to marry and produce a family with. A good example is my paternal grand father who is half white. He ended up marrying a pure black afro Colombian woman.
I have been to many places where I encounter black people. Dominican Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, Canada, Brazil, Colombia, even here in Parts of thr United States like Atlanta. Black women prefer white and or biracial mixed race men over black men. Even when I was in Dominican Republic a Haitian woman who I courted wanted me to move to Dominican Republic to be with her. Throughout the diaspora. Black women still desire white and biracial men for mating.
But what I can say is this. Slavery was much more brutal in south America and the caribbean vs the United States. Why? South America you have the brutal Amazon rain forest and the heat. Death was constant. Working in sugar and rice fields were dangerous when you breath in the shreeded products of rice and sugar which got in to your lungs. Factor in mosquitos and malaria.
Also note. That 300k slaves were imported to the 13 colonies and later the United States. Slaves here had better access to tolerable climate and better care from slave masters compared to wasteful plantations in South America.
You have the second most complex lineage I have seen. An old boss half Hispanic father and Caribbean everything mother is the only one I have heard more complex. Net net he looks Hispanic.
Someone already proved the science to show this is objectively wrong. They got raped, and that's why black Americans largely have 20% white admixture in them. Not all of it was rape, but we are talking the vast majority it's likely 90-99% of folks who have 4 African American grandparents.
What do you define as rape? A lot of people claim that Sally Hemings was raped. Did she not give her consent? Well, people will say it doesn't matter because of the power dynamics. Either she didn't have the power to say no, or it was unreasonable to expect her to say no.
For instance, when male prison guards have sex with female inmates, many people call this rape. The idea is that the prison guard is basically leveraging his position to coerce women into having sex. That without his position of authority, she wouldn't have had sex with him.
My guess is that black females having sex with white men were mostly doing it for some perceived advantage. They might have gotten better living conditions, better food, higher status, etc. But don't all women have sex for better living conditions, better food, higher status, etc? Don't they leverage their sexuality basically for money? You know, men who have good jobs, nice houses, nice cars, etc?
Feminists claim that before emancipation all women were enslaved, since they couldn't own anything or do anything without a man. If so, were women who felt compelled to get married, and be dependent on their husbands in exchange for sex, being raped?
There were feminists in the 1800's who claimed that married women are regularly coerced into having sex, and aren't even paid for it. That married women are lower than prostitutes.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-17-2021 at 01:47 PM..
Well you wouldn't wanted to have been in their shoes. The slaveholders were purposely and needlessly cutting them out for a very small margin and slavery was no benefit to them. There were no labor laws or minimum wage and plenty of free market labor. Slaves didn't just work on the plantations and in the fields, where it could be argued (falsely) slavery was needed just like we supposedly need tons of illegal farm workers today, but did all sorts of other jobs too.
I don't believe that is true. The 26% white admixture average in blacks doesn't genetically exclude recent ancestry.
No, you don't understand. These are controlled studies done and DO NOT include bi-racial people.
So we know for a fact, because those are the constraints of the studies. If you have a sample of 4000 random black people, and not one of them is a bi-racial person with a white mother, we can be sure that the 20% European ancestry is not from recent admixture from white females.
Quote:
It is the product of all their ancestry to date.
No. That's is not how the studies are defined. They specifically measure historical admixture, because they outright exclude people who have white parents or grandparents.
Again, You don't say Europeans enslaved their own people when your talking about the Danish Vikings enslaving the English. It's not semantics because while they should apologize, your spreading false information.
Wrong.
African Kings and Chiefs were not just selling other tribes, they we capturing their own people, but don't take my word for it:
Quote:
Yoweri Museveni, the president of Uganda, told an audience including Bill Clinton: "African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them. If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today."
I never said it can't be determine if your genes are black or white, I always say genetic matching can tell that. What I'm saying is the y chromosomes and mDNA doesn't change much through time and they can't really tell the time origin the DNA was passed on let alone whether through rape. Most of the white admixture in blacks happened after slavery.
Yes, they can. SNPs that happen in inert sections of DNA are used to date lineages to thousands of years, and 10,000s of years. STR analysis can date things to just 1 generation, to several generations.
Did you know your Y-chromosome is not exactly the same as your fathers? Even between father and son, there are mutations. Usually this shows up in the frequency of alleles on certain loci in the Y-chromosome and this is how geneticists can determine father from son from grandfather.
No, you don't understand. These are controlled studies done and DO NOT include bi-racial people.
So we know for a fact, because those are the constraints of the studies. If you have a sample of 4000 random black people, and not one of them is a bi-racial person with a white mother, we can be sure that the 20% European ancestry is not from recent admixture from white females.
No. That's is not how the studies are defined. They specifically measure historical admixture, because they outright exclude people who have white parents or grandparents.
The 26% admixture is the overall average for blacks to date and isn't excluding any ancestry. They have no real way of excluding ancestry to pre-Emancipation anyway.
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.
