- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: You Member When Kamala’s Family Owned Slaves OnTheir Plantation?
Posted on 6/29/19 at 7:59 pm to Taxing Authority
Posted on 6/29/19 at 7:59 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:My original post was a few sentences making a general statement of the concept, not a treatise. Even so, it did make reference to immigrants.
your original “analysis” didn’t bother to look so deep.
quote:In the Antebellum South, poor White trash and the top 50% did not intermarry much. In the ensuing 150 years, their descendants have intermarried extensively.
None of my family was wealthy. (Most southerners weren’t). The odds of them owning slaves are tiny. You have this completely backwards.
Your focus on immigration is badly overstated. By the early 1900s, only about 6% of the Southern population was foreign-born ... compared to 3x that figure in the North. Put simply, most immigrants avoided the South like they avoided the plague. LINK
1
Posted on 6/29/19 at 8:05 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:Good LORD, you cannot read even your own statistics. The 5% figure was the country as a whole, NOT the South. In the South, 20-30% of INDIVIDUALS owned at least one slave at some point in life, and about HALF of families. This is going to BLOW your mind, but if one is descended from a husband and wife, the husband probably held title to the slaves and the wife did not ... yet the descendants of BOTH are descended from a slave owner.
How are they irrelevant when a gigantic swath overlying a very small potential gene pool left the population in the years immediately following emancipation? Remember, YOU are the one claiming that 5% morphed into 90% of current Southern whites being descendants of slave owners.
The geographic origin of American Blacks has no bearing at all upon this issue at all. I have no idea why you are trying to insert it into the conversation.
Posted on 6/29/19 at 8:11 pm to AggieHank86
quote:You claimed it was unassailable. Yet me and others eviscerated it. But you’re right to flee it.
My original post was a few sentences making a general statement of the concept, not a treatise
quote:Warmer. And congrats on being a bigot. Just because someone didn’t own a plantation doesn’t make them trash.
In the Antebellum South, poor White trash and the top 50% did not intermarry much.
quote:Nope. There’s been a lot of progeny imported both foreign and domestically.
In the ensuing 150 years, their descendants have intermarried extensively.
quote:Nope.
Your focus on immigration is badly overstated
quote:You've left out something rather obvious here.
By the early 1900s, only about 6% of the Southern population was foreign-born ..
Posted on 6/29/19 at 8:12 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Hint: not everyone in the south today decended from people that were in the south in the 1850’s.
NOT the South. In the South, 20-30% of INDIVIDUALS owned at least one slave at some point in life
Posted on 6/29/19 at 8:24 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:It is. The VAST majority of Southern Whites have an ancestor who owned a slave. You and VS have basically argued that the average Southern White also has ancestors who did not own slaves. I have never asserted otherwise.
You claimed it was unassailable.
quote:In 1872, one of my ancestors from a (former) plantation family moved to Texas from Mississippi and married the daughter of a family too poor to have ever owned slaves. This was not atypical. SHOCKER, their kids were descended from a slave owner.quote:Nope.
In the ensuing 150 years, their descendants have intermarried extensively.
Sorry, but you overstate the impact of immigration on the population of the South prior to WW2.
Posted on 6/29/19 at 8:27 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:No. But the vast majority have at least ONE of their 128-256 ancestors from that generation who DID live in the South at that time.
not everyone in the south today decended from people that were in the south in the 1850’s.
Posted on 6/29/19 at 8:27 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Isn’t her mother Indian? Slavery was legal in India until 1843. Hmmm... TO THE PROGGYHANK RACE CACLULATOR!!!!!
I'm just disappointed no one tried to calculate those odds. Might have been easier than the Southerner math given her mom is from Tamil Nadu.
Posted on 6/29/19 at 8:46 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Its not. Nope. When pointed to its deficiencies you said it was “just a couple of paragraphs” not a treatise. Now you’re back to unassailable.
It is.
quote:Its cute you believe that.
In 1872, one of my ancestors from a (former) plantation family moved to Texas from Mississippi and married the daughter of a family too poor to have ever owned slaves. This was not atypical.
quote:As I mentor once told me: “Anyone can prove anything if they just ignore the right things”.
Sorry, but you overstate the impact of immigration on the population of the South prior to WW2.
Posted on 6/29/19 at 8:47 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Even the ones ones that lived overseas and in northern states apparently. What’s really cool is that 100% of them owned slaves. Whatever it takes to make your case I suppose.
No. But the vast majority have at least ONE of their 128-256 ancestors from that generation who DID live in the South at that time.
This post was edited on 6/29/19 at 8:49 pm
Posted on 6/29/19 at 8:55 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Let me throw this at you, Hank. You're on an LSU board, and it's heavily populated by people who consider themselves "white southerners."
No. But the vast majority have at least ONE of their 128-256 ancestors from that generation who DID live in the South at that time.
But, the population of South Louisiana has a much different ancestry than most of the American South or anywhere else in America for that matter.
I can directly trace my roots to when my ancestors arrived, and, that's not uncommon around here. Even if your numbers are right for the South as a whole, I bet you'd find a notable exception in South Louisiana upon actually looking into it.
Posted on 6/29/19 at 9:00 pm to AggieHank86
You are misreading the statistics you smug ignoramus. 4.9% of individuals in slaveholding states in 1860 owned slaves - in effect, the confederacy, with the tiny exception of Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware, accounting for less than 10% of slaveholding families- a much broader metric. Census LINK
Uber Right Wing Politifact LINK
The larger numbers are liberal attempts to broaden the figure by counting slave owning “households” or “families” rather than actual slave owners, essentially lumping women and children in with their slave master kin, or counting large plantations that house many white working families as one slave owning household.
Now. Take a deep breath, fire up the race calculator and explain to us how 5% of Southern whites turned into 90%, while 100% of blacks dropped to 60% in the same timeframe. Until you can do that, kindly GFY.
quote:
"The number that really matters is how many American households in the South had slaves," said Adam Goodheart, a Washington College historian and author of 1861: The Civil War Awakening. Using Census data to research his book, Glatthaar calculated that 4.9 percent of people in the slaveholding states owned slaves
Uber Right Wing Politifact LINK
The larger numbers are liberal attempts to broaden the figure by counting slave owning “households” or “families” rather than actual slave owners, essentially lumping women and children in with their slave master kin, or counting large plantations that house many white working families as one slave owning household.
quote:
19.9 percent of family units in those states owned slaves, and that 24.9 percent of households owned slaves. (Households are a broader category than families.)
Now. Take a deep breath, fire up the race calculator and explain to us how 5% of Southern whites turned into 90%, while 100% of blacks dropped to 60% in the same timeframe. Until you can do that, kindly GFY.
This post was edited on 6/29/19 at 9:55 pm
Posted on 6/29/19 at 9:00 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
You claimed it was unassailable. Yet me and others eviscerated it. But you’re right to flee it.
Honestly, you haven't eviscerated anything. AggieHank may have exaggerated a bit, but the gist of his argument is on the money. The vast majority of native Southerners have slave owners somewhere in their lineage. A more accurate percentage, however, is somewhere between 66-75%, not 90%
Posted on 6/29/19 at 9:07 pm to Saint Alfonzo
That’s a lazy stereotype that is almost certainly way off. Read my posts in this thread.
Most southerners know little about reconstruction, southern diaspora, and post emancipation European migrancy. It radically changed the demographics of the old south, which had a meager population of only 9 million at the time of the confederacy.
Most southerners know little about reconstruction, southern diaspora, and post emancipation European migrancy. It radically changed the demographics of the old south, which had a meager population of only 9 million at the time of the confederacy.
Posted on 6/29/19 at 9:12 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Obama would be the rare exception.
Are you saying Obama's ancestors were not slave owners?
His Kenyan ancestors were slave traders.
Weren't liberals trying to trace Obama back to Jefferson?
Posted on 6/29/19 at 9:13 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
That’s a lazy stereotype that is almost certainly way off
It's not. It's genealogical science and research. I'm not condemning or judging anyone or placing blame. It's history, nothing more.
Posted on 6/29/19 at 9:16 pm to Saint Alfonzo
Oh, ok.
Than maybe you can explain to us why only 60% of modern American blacks have slave ancestry when virtually 100% of American blacks in 1860 were slaves, Mr. genealogist.
Does black genealogy work in reverse?
Than maybe you can explain to us why only 60% of modern American blacks have slave ancestry when virtually 100% of American blacks in 1860 were slaves, Mr. genealogist.
Does black genealogy work in reverse?
Posted on 6/29/19 at 9:42 pm to keakar
quote:
You Member When Kamala’s Family Owned Slaves OnTheir Plantation? takes out biden playing race card, then gets outed as a half white slave owner herself im so glad to have this ridiculous dimm virtue signalling comedy show to entertain us for the next year
That’s why I say that CamelToe Harris is the biggest fraud of the Dim POTUS candidates. If the DimMedia wasn’t running interference for her azz she’d already be in as much trouble as Biden. They would both be done!
Posted on 6/29/19 at 10:31 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Than maybe you can explain to us why only 60% of modern American blacks have slave ancestry when virtually 100% of American blacks in 1860 were slaves
The easiest explanation is that your 60% number is wrong. And what are "modern American blacks?" It's not a term I've ever seen used. Virtually all African Americans are descendants of slaves.
This post was edited on 6/29/19 at 10:32 pm
Posted on 6/29/19 at 10:40 pm to Saint Alfonzo
It’s based on the Y-DNA and mt-DNA studies done on 2007 and 2005 respectively, focusing on West/Central African ancestry present in American blacks today. I can assure you, it’s not wrong. In fact, its being generous, since we are assuming all this genetic material came to America pre-emancipation. Some of it came later.
Just because something seems right doesn’t make it so. This thread is about facts, not feelings.
Woah
Just because something seems right doesn’t make it so. This thread is about facts, not feelings.
quote:
Virtually all African Americans are descendants of slaves.
Woah
This post was edited on 6/29/19 at 10:52 pm
Posted on 6/29/19 at 10:57 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
It’s based on the Y-DNA and mt-DNA studies done on 2007 and 2005 respectively, focusing on West/Central African ancestry present in American blacks today. I can assure you, it’s not wrong.
You are conflating two things. Claiming that only 60% of "modern" blacks are descended from slaves is not the same thing as saying that only 60% of the DNA of "modern" blacks are West/Central African in origin. You see the difference, right? If you are referring to admixture, the numbers break down like this:
* According to Ancestry.com, the average African American is 65 percent sub-Saharan African, 29 percent European and 2 percent Native American.
* According to 23andme.com, the average African American is 75 percent sub-Saharan African, 22 percent European and only 0.6 percent Native American.
* According to Family Tree DNA.com, the average African American is 72.95 percent sub-Saharan African, 22.83 percent European and 1.7 percent Native American.
* According to National Geographic's Genographic Project, the average African American is 80 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 1 percent Native American.
* According to AfricanDNA, in which I am a partner with Family Tree DNA, the average African American is 79 percent sub-Saharan African, 19 percent European and 2 percent Native American.
The "I" referred to in the last blurb is Dr. Henry Louis Gates, Jr.
This post was edited on 6/29/19 at 11:18 pm
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News