American-Liberians=/=African-American

IllmaticDelta

Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
28,893
Reputation
9,531
Daps
81,349
The point is really to showcase these people were not our ancestors. The AME Church you are speaking of was established by freedman who had been enslaved in the 1700's. They were also successful and owned owned other Black people. Our ancestors were not these people - the majority of Black Americans ancestors came over in the 1800's towards the end of the 1807 Abolishment of African Slave Trade and born in America -- and remained enslaved till Emancipation.

The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.​

For instance:

Richard Allen was born into slavery on February 14, 1760, on the Delaware property of Benjamin Chew. When he was a child Allen and his family were sold to Stokeley Sturgis, who had a plantation in Delaware. When Sturgis had financial problems he sold Richard's mother and two of his five siblings. Allen had an older brother and sister left with him and the three began to attend meetings of the local Methodist Society, which was welcoming to slaves and free blacks. They were encouraged by their master Sturgis, although he was unconverted. Richard taught himself to read and write. He joined the Methodists at age 17. He began evangelizing and attracted criticism from local slave owners. Allen and his brother redoubled their efforts for Sturgis so no one could say his slaves did not do well because of religion.[4]

The Reverend Freeborn Garrettson, who had freed his own slaves in 1775, began to preach in Delaware. He was among many Methodist and Baptist ministers after the American Revolutionary War who encouraged slaveholders to emancipate their people. When Garrettson visited the Sturgis plantation to preach, Allen's master was touched by this declaration and began to give consideration to the thought that holding slaves was sinful.[5] Sturgis was soon convinced that slavery was wrong and offered his slaves an opportunity to buy their freedom. Allen performed extra work to earn the money and bought his freedom in 1780, after which he changed his name from "Negro Richard" to "Richard Allen".[6


I disagree here. The FPOC are/were Afram's ancestors.....back then you just had scattered Afro-descendents in the USA with regional experiences and cultures but the modern afram is a blend of those 3 traditions/segments on a longer scale of time than when some early stage aframs bounced to Liberia.


Origins of African-American Ethnicity or African-American Ethnic Traits


The newly formed Black Yankee ethnicity of the early 1800s differed from today’s African-American ethnicity. Modern African-American ethnic traits come from a post-bellum blending of three cultural streams: the Black Yankee ethnicity of 1830, the slave traditions of the antebellum South, and the free Creole or Mulatto elite traditions of the lower South. Each of the three sources provided elements of the religious, linguistic, and folkloric traditions found in today’s African-American ethnicity.30


Essays on the U.S. Color Line » Blog Archive » The Color Line Created African-American Ethnicity in the North
 

IllmaticDelta

Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
28,893
Reputation
9,531
Daps
81,349
i would considered Americo Liberians as a derivative/related group to AAs. I'm confused because OP seems to be saying free people of color are different than blacks/AA

she's means of THAT TIME which is true because fully crystallized afram identity that we know today didn't exist. The Aframs of today are composed of free blacks/mulattos/free people of color etc...while back then you had free people of color and pure africans on plantations.
 

Poitier

My Words Law
Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2013
Messages
69,411
Reputation
15,449
Daps
246,375
Someone should do a thread on ethnic identity formation :ehh:

One of the most dishonest things I've seen in this section is when an enslaved African might be born in say the Caribbean prior to any independent countries but was transported at a young age and yet some will still claim that person is Caribbean.
 

IllmaticDelta

Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
28,893
Reputation
9,531
Daps
81,349
Just so I have confirmation, are AAs saying that AAs didn't exist until a certain year? And are they are saying any reletaives they had prior to that year are NOT AAs?

Lynchburg’s Americo-Liberians risked everything for freedom, rights

This Article uses the term "AA" a few times like here:
"They were among 3,700 Virginians who emigrated to Liberia as part of the American Colonization Society’s efforts to remove African-Americans from the states and in the process Christianize the old continent."

Are we saying these people who were Black and Descendants of American Slaves between 1829 and 1865 ARE DIFFERENT then the people who call themselves African American currently?

Also if they ARE different, and people are saying African Americans came into existence AFTER 1865 (when slavery was abolished) are we now saying these people are different than the blacks before them who were Descendants of American Slavery?
Like I said it's not my ethnic group so help me understand for future reference.

she's trying to highlight that free people of color (who are aframs) are not the same as the aframs ancestors who were directly slaves. The people who went to Liberia were not directly slaves so they had a different experience/classification back THEN and in her view aren't authentic Aframs. There is some truth to this but again, they represented a different and one of the many dynamics in afram history/identity formation. Free people of color in the North operated differently from free people of color in slave holding south.


Douglass considered himself to be neither White nor Black, but both. His multiracial self-identity showed in his first autobiography. Introducing his father in Narrative, Douglass wrote, “My father was a white man.” In this text, his mother was a stranger whom he had never seen in daylight, he could not picture her face, and he was unmoved by news of her death.4 Not only did Douglass adopt a fictional Scottish hero’s name, he emphasized his (perhaps imagined) Scots descent through his father. When visiting Great Britain in 1845-47, Douglass extended his stay in Scotland. He immersed himself in Scottish music and ballads, which he played on the violin for the rest of his life. Having plunged into a Scottish ethnic identity, Douglass wrote to his (then) friend, William Lloyd Garrison, “If I should meet you now, amid the free hills of old Scotland, where the ancient ‘black Douglass’ [sic] once met his foes… you would see a great change in me!”5 Upon arriving in Nantucket, Douglass hoped to represent a blending of both endogamous groups, a man who was half-White and half-Black:

Young, ardent, and hopeful, I entered upon this new life in the full gush of unsuspecting enthusiasm. The cause was good, the men engaged in it were good, the means to attain its triumph, good…. For a time, I was made to forget that my skin was dark and my hair crisped.6

But acceptance by White society was out of reach for Douglass. He discovered that, in the North, there was no such thing as a man who was half-Black. White ships’ caulkers in New Bedford denied him a chance to work at his craft because in their eyes he was all Black.7 When he joined the Garrisonians on a boat to an abolitionist convention in Nantucket, and a squabble broke out because the White abolitionists demanded that the Black abolitionists take lesser accommodations, Douglass found himself classified as Black by his friends. Later in Nantucket, Douglass so impressed the Garrisonians with his public speaking that abolitionist Edmund Quincy exchanged reports with others that Douglass was an articulate public speaker, “for a ******.”8 Repeatedly, Douglass tried to present himself as an intermediary between America’s two endogamous groups. But the Garrisonians made it clear that he was expected to present himself as nothing more than an intelligent “Negro.” He was told to talk only about the evils of slavery and ordered to stop talking about the endogamous color line. “Give us the facts [about being a slave]. We will take care of the [racial] philosophy.” They also ordered him to “leave a little plantation speech” in his accent.9 In their own words, they wanted to display a smart “******,” but not too smart.

Douglass’s cruelest discovery came after he broke with the Garrisonians and went out on his own. Abolitionist friends of both endogamous groups had warned him that there was nothing personal in how Garrison had used him. The public did not want an intermediary; they wanted an articulate Black. Douglass soon discovered that his friends were right. His newspaper, The North Star,failed to sell because it had no market; White Yankees wanted to read White publications and Black Yankees wanted to read Black ones. Indeed, Black political leaders resented Douglass’s distancing himself from Black ethno-political society. There was no room in Massachusetts for a man who straddled the color line.

Douglass dutifully reinvented himself. He applied himself to learning Black Yankee culture. “He began to build a closer relationship with… Negro leaders and with the Negro people themselves, to examine the whole range of Negro problems, and to pry into every facet of discrimination.”10 Eight months later, The North Star’s circulation was soaring and Black leader James McCune Smith wrote to Black activist Gerrit Smith:

You will be surprised to hear me say that only since his Editorial career has he seen to become a colored man! I have read his paper very carefully and find phrase after phrase develop itself as in one newly born among us.11

From that day on, Douglass never looked back. The public wanted him to be hyper-Black and so hyper-Black he became. His later autobiographies reveal the change.12 Narrative (1845) says that his “father was a white man,” My Bondage and My Freedom (1854) says that his father “was shrouded in mystery” and “nearly white,” and The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass (1882-1892) says flatly, “of my father I know nothing.”13 Narrative says that his mother was a stranger whose death did not affect him, and Bondage and Freedom reports that he was “deeply attached to her,” Life and Times says that “her image is ineffably stamped upon my memory,” and describes her death with “great poignancy and sorrow.”14

And yet, although he donned a public persona of extreme Blackness, he continued to see himself as half White Scottish in his private life. When he eventually married Helen Pitts, a woman of the White endogamous group, even close friends were bothered by the mismatch between the public and private Douglasses.15 In a speech in 1886 Jacksonville, Florida, Douglass justified his intermarriage on the grounds of his own multiracial self-identity. According to James Weldon Johnson:

Douglass spoke, and moved a large audience of white and colored people by his supreme eloquence. … Douglass was speaking in the far South, but he spoke without fear or reservation. One statement in particular that he made, I now wonder if any Negro speaker today, under the same circumstances, would dare to make, and, if he did, what the public reaction would be; Douglass, in reply to the current criticisms regarding his second marriage, said, “In my first marriage I paid my compliments to my mother’s race; in my second marriage I paid my compliments to the race of my father.”16

* * * * *

The clash between how Douglass saw himself in 1838 and the public persona that he was forced to portray, was due to the presence of African-American ethnicity in the North.17 Free citizens of part-African ancestry in the South, especially in the lower South, lacked the sense of common tradition associated with ethnic self-identity. This essay traces the emergence of African-American ethnicity and the subsequent evolution of the color line in five topics: Origins of African-American Ethnicity explains how the imposition of a unique endogamous color line eventually led to the synthesis of a unique ethno-cultural community in the Jacksonian Northeast. African-American Ethnic Traits outlines the customs of the Black Yankee ethnic group to show that they gave birth to many of today’s Black traditions. The Integration versus Separatism Pendulum introduces a debate that has occupied Black political leaders since colonial times. The Color Line in the North contrasts the harsh enforcement of the intermarriage barrier in the free states with the more permeable systems of the lower South (as presented in the preceding three essays). The National Color Line’s Rise and Fall concludes this section on the endogamous color line by presenting two graphs. The first shows that which side of the endogamous color line you were on was most hotly contested in U.S. courts between 1840 and 1869. The second shows that the color line grew abruptly stronger during Reconstruction, was at its harshest during Jim Crow, and began to recover only around 1980.


Origins of African-American Ethnicity
Early in the nineteenth-century, the American North saw the emergence of invented ethnic self-identities that became political power groups: Germans, Irish, Jews, Hispanics (from Louisiana and Florida), and, of course, Black Yankees. Each ethnicity was synthetic in the sense that, while adopting symbols (traditions, language, rituals) associated with some land of origin, it absorbed diversity under a single label. Residents of what would become western Germany (Bavaria or Hesse-Kassel), for example, did not think of themselves as kin to Prussians until after they became a U.S. ethnicity.18

An incident in early nineteenth-century Buffalo, New York, exemplifies immigrants’ initial perception of separate identity, before the formation of a shared sense of common ethnicity. Some fifty families of German Jews came to Buffalo. They soon felt compelled to build their own synagogue, to avoid attending services with prior American Jews who had already been accepted as Americans. Before long, they had to split again into two congregations because of doctrinal differences between those from western and eastern Germany. Finally, the eastern congregation split in half due to liturgical disagreements between Prussians and Poles.19 Similarly, residents of county Cavan in Ireland looked down on Corkers as profligates, and those from Cork or County Claire used the term “meanCavanb*stard” as a single word (rather like “damnYankee” in the U.S. South).

Despite such initial divisions, immigrants quickly learned that power in America comes to those who command bloc votes. Each ethnic label became an umbrella designation covering all who joined. Voting was not the only manifestation of group power. Parades, public rituals, even riots and gang wars pitted group against group. Ultimately however, the aggressive, in-your-face umbrella ethnicities of the period arose as a consequence of democracy and surged with the widening Jacksonian franchise. Ethnic groups were voting blocs.20

One would think that Black Yankees would have been initially more diverse than Europeans because Africa is larger and more populous than Europe. The geographic triangle bounded by Cape Town, Casablanca, and Cairo is a vast kaleidoscope of thousands of cultures, religions, and mutually unintelligible languages. Nevertheless, Northerners of the Black endogamous group were not exempt from the need to define themselves as an ethnic group. Like other ethnicities, Black Yankees in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati also conducted parades, processions, and festivals to, “strengthen and solidify the boundaries of class and ethnicity that buttressed and circumscribed American politics of self-interest.”21

Amid much pomp and parade, with carriaged processions of Revolutionary War veterans, members of benevolent and literary societies, and the committee on arrangements, entire communities made a public show of their “industry, integrity, [and] temperance.” Women and children joined the parades, waving flags from the windows of omnibuses. Along waterways like the Hudson and Susquehanna rivers, chartered steamboats brought ‘large delegations from different localities’ to common points of celebration like Geneva, New York, and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In a resonant declaration of Pan-African unity, African-American communities made clear [their solidarity].22

Essays on the U.S. Color Line » Blog Archive » The Color Line Created African-American Ethnicity in the North
 
Last edited:

IllmaticDelta

Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
28,893
Reputation
9,531
Daps
81,349
might as well drop this because it helps put into context what @xoxodede is trying to get at

Yeah while I think the Black Yankee thing is legit, that paper OVER exaggerates their influence on AA's as a whole.

But I am curious to the level of influence "Black Yankees" would of had in cities where there were sizeable populations (NYC, Boston, Philly), and how that may have impacted newly arrived southerners. I can see them being very influential from post emacipation to at least the very early stages of the great migration.

repost from me

The Black Yankees (free people of color in the north)


The newly formed Black Yankee ethnicity of the early 1800s differed from today’s African-American ethnicity. Modern African-American ethnic traits come from a post-bellum blending of three cultural streams: the Black Yankee ethnicity of 1830, the slave traditions of the antebellum South, and the free Creole or Mulatto elite traditions of the lower South. Each of the three sources provided elements of the religious, linguistic, and folkloric traditions found in today’s African-American ethnicity.30

Black Yankee ethnicity was also not the same thing as membership in America’s Black endogamous group. The difference between Black Yankee ethnicity and Black endogamous group membership is that ethnicity is to some extent voluntary whereas which side of the color line you are on is usually involuntary. Mainstream America assigns to the Black side of the endogamous color line people of many different ethnicities whose only common trait is a dark-brown skin tone. These include West Indians, some East Indians (sometimes), recent African immigrants, and (until recently) African-looking Muslims and Hispanics. Finally, the endogamous color line was imposed in 1691 but the earliest evidence of Black Yankee ethnicity dates from the mid 1700s.

Although less wealthy than the Louisiana Creoles, the Black Yankees had developed a strong supportive culture that could withstand the buffeting of social upheaval. They were usually ostracized from mainstream society due to the endogamous color line. According to contemporary accounts, they responded with grace and dignity, making a virtue of their separation. It was not uncommon to see lines of quiet, well-behaved children following their parents to Sunday service with the gravitas and pietas of Roman elders. Their preachers taught that they were put on earth to be tested.31 Their lot was to serve as example to the white folks of how civilized Christians behave.

Most Black Yankees distinguished themselves from slaves—indeed many families had no history of slavery but descended from indentured servants. Nevertheless, many were active contributors to and activists in the abolition movement. This is in strong contrast to the biracial elite of the Gulf coast and Latin America, who owned slaves and defended slavery as a noble institution.32 The contrast was due to the lack of an independent Black ethnicity among Hispanic planters of part-African ancestry, and this lack was due, in turn, to the absence of an endogamous color line.

In some ways, Black Yankee culture (religion, language, music, dance, food, costume) was indistinguishable from that of White Yankees. For example, the boisterous interactive style of many African-American church services today would have been alien to them, since it originated in the slaveholding South. Daniel A. Payne was a Black Yankee, a career AME minister in Philadelphia. He was a sympathizer of the Underground Railroad, so its organizers asked him to preach to a group of newly escaped slaves. His diary reports:

After the sermon, they formed a ring, and with coats off sung, clapped their hands and stamped their feet in a most ridiculous and heathenish way. I requested that the pastor go and stop their dancing. At his request they stopped their dancing and clapping of hands, but remained singing and rocking their bodies to and fro.33

Although the endogamous color line was stricter in the antebellum North than in the antebellum South, it was less strict in 1850 and 1860 than in 1970 and 1980.34 The children of interracial marriages in the Northeast were usually census-reported as “Negroes” rather than as “Mulattoes.” This resembles today’s customs and contrasts with the more permeable color lines of the lower South. According to Joel Williamson, “In 1850 in the five states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, mulattoes actually outnumbered blacks by 24,000 to 22,000, while in the older-settled New England and Middle Atlantic states blacks outnumbered mulattoes by about three to one.”35


The Black Yankees set many of the patterns of modern African-American life. They developed the supportive church-centered social structure found in African-American communities today
. Long before the South was segregated, they faced isolation and cyclical rejection by mainstream society. They were also the first to articulate the dilemma that continues to occupy Black thinkers to this day: integration versus separatism.

.
.
.
On the interactions between the Black Yankees and Southern Plantation Blacks:

The aftermath of the Civil War dramatically accelerated the process of cultural osmosis. In the same way that Northern entrepreneurs (carpetbaggers) flooded the Reconstruction South seeking business opportunities, tens of thousands of Black Yankees left homes and careers and also migrated to the defeated South. They built the schools, printed the newspapers, and opened the businesses that taught the newly freed to flourish as Americans.68 Joel Williamson particularly distinguishes between Northern Black Yankees and Southern former slaves, especially among former Union soldiers:

The channels though which mulatto leadership moved from the North to the lower South are clearly visible. Many of the migrants, women as well as men, came as teachers sponsored by a dozen or so benevolent societies, arriving in the still turbulent wake of Union armies. Others came to organize relief for the refugees…. Still others… came south as religious missionaries… Some came south as business or professional people seeking opportunity on this… special black frontier. Finally, thousands came as soldiers [Black Yankees in regiments that served in the South], and when the war was over, many of [their] young men remained there or returned after a stay of some months in the North to complete their education.69

Culture clash made for bumpy times for some of the volunteers. Slave religious services were characterized by the ring-shout ceremony. In a ring-shout, as Daniel Payne had noticed,70 the outdoor congregation shuffles, dances, claps, and sings as they circle the preacher, loudly responding to his or her every utterance. Although the ring-shout is ostensibly Christian, the old Yoruba orixas Exu, Ogun, Xango, Oxossi often make an appearance by taking possession of a dancer, especially in the Sea Islands and in Louisiana bayous.71 Black Yankees, in contrast, were staid Methodist Episcopalians. Slave music had exceedingly simple melodies and harmony was unknown, but the music gloried in dazzling rhythmic syncopation. Black Yankee music was characterized by the subtle and changing harmonies of Anglican hymns and a steady British beat.72

Many AME ministers sent south insisted on an educated ministry, undercutting the authority of self-taught slave-born preachers, and demanded more sedate services than new freedmen were used to. “The old people were not anxious to see innovations introduced in religious worship,” one wrote home, telling how a Black Yankee preacher was mocked as a “Presbyterian” by his new flock.73 Nevertheless, the overall attitude of the Black Yankees reflected solidarity with their charges. New England Black Yankee teacher Virginia C. Greene wrote home, “I class myself with the freedmen. Though I have never known servitude they are in fact my people.”74 Some of the southbound migrants even married white southern Republicans during Congressional Reconstruction. Carrie Highgate, a Black Yankee schoolteacher from New York married White Mississippi state senator Albert T. Morgan.75

Essays on the U.S. Color Line » Blog Archive » The Color Line Created African-American Ethnicity in the North

.
.










 

Apollo Creed

Look at your face
Supporter
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
56,289
Reputation
13,518
Daps
211,830
Reppin
Handsome Boyz Ent
she's trying to highlight that free people of color (who are aframs) are not the same as the aframs ancestors who were directly slaves. The people who went to Liberia were not directly slaves so they had a different experience/classification back THEN and in her view aren't authentic Aframs. There is some truth to this but again, they represented a different and one of the many dynamics in afram history/identity formation. Free people of color in the North operated differently from free people of color in slave holding south.







Essays on the U.S. Color Line » Blog Archive » The Color Line Created African-American Ethnicity in the North

There were numerous people who went to Liberia though, I don't think it's a fair assessment to say none of them were directly slaves. Luckily I don't care enough about the subject to go dig and find some stuff. My Cousins wife Great Grandfather was an Americo Liberian from North Carolina, I doubt he had it "sweet" nor did his ancestors before him. I never asked if he was born free though.

Unless there is a survey that someone did that shows the raw numbers then Idk if it is smart to speak in absolutes.
 

IllmaticDelta

Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
28,893
Reputation
9,531
Daps
81,349
There were numerous people who went to Liberia though, I don't think it's a fair assessment to say none of them were directly slaves. Luckily I don't care enough about the subject to go dig and find some stuff. My Cousins wife Great Grandfather was an Americo Liberian from North Carolina, I doubt he had it "sweet" nor did his ancestors before him. I never asked if he was born free though.

Unless there is a survey that someone did that shows the raw numbers then Idk if it is smart to speak in absolutes.

the aframs who went to liberia were free people of color. Sierra Leone/Freetown probably had more actual direct slave aframs since alot of them were poor runaways.
 

IllmaticDelta

Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
28,893
Reputation
9,531
Daps
81,349
Does a "former slave" not qualify as "free person of color"?

technically yes but there are some differences

In the United States, the terms "freedmen" and "freedwomen" refer chiefly to former slaves emancipated during and after the American Civil War, by the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment. Slaves freed before the war, usually by individual manumissions, often in wills, were generally referred to as "Free Negroes" or free blacks. In addition, there was a population of African Americans born free, descendants of families of unions between white women (indentured servants or free) and African men (whether indentured servants, slave or free.) According to laws in the slave states, children were born into the status of their mothers; thus, mixed-race children of white women were born free.[5] There were numerous such families formed in the Upper South before the Revolution, and they migrated west into Kentucky, West Virginia and Tennessee with neighbors.[5] For the first two decades after the Revolution, thousands of slaves were freed in the Upper South, and most northern states abolished slavery, some on a gradual basis.

In Louisiana and other areas of the former New France, free people of color were classified in French as gens de couleur libres. They were born to African or African-European mothers and white fathers of mixed-race African and French or other European ancestry. The fathers sometimes freed their children and sexual partners, and the Creoles of color community became well-established, particularly in New Orleans before Louisiana became part of the US

In United States history, a free Negro or free black was the legal status, in the geographic area of the United States, of blacks who were not slaves.

This term was in use before the independence of the Thirteen Colonies and elsewhere in British North America, until the abolition of slavery in the United States in 1865, which rendered the term unnecessary.

Slavery was legal and practiced in each of the European colonies at various times. Not all Africans who came to America were slaves; a few came even in the 17th century as free men, sailors working on ships. In the early colonial years, some Africans came as indentured servants, as did many of the immigrants from the British Isles. Such servants became free when they completed their term of indenture; they were also eligible for headrights for land in the new colony in the Chesapeake Bay region, where indentured servants were more common. As early as 1619, a class of free black people existed in North America.[1]

The free Negro population increased in a number of ways:

  1. children born to colored free women (see Partus sequitur ventrem)
  2. mulatto children born to white indentured or free women
  3. mixed-race children born to free Indian women (enslaving Indians was prohibited from the mid-18th century, but did continue until Emancipation)[2]
  4. freed slaves
  5. slaves who escaped[3]

In addition, slaveholders manumitted some slaves for various reasons: to reward long years of service, because heirs did not want to take on slaves, or to free slave concubines and/or their children. Slaves were sometimes allowed to buy their freedom; they might be permitted to save money from fees paid when they were "hired out" to work for other parties.[8] In the mid-to-late 18th century, Methodist and Baptist evangelists in the first Great Awakening encouraged slaveholders to free their slaves, in their belief that all men were equal before God. They converted many slaves to Christianity and approved black leaders as preachers; blacks developed their own strain of Christianity. Before the American Revolutionary War, few slaves were manumitted.

The war greatly disrupted the slave societies. Beginning with Lord Dunmore, governor of Virginia, the British colonial governments recruited slaves of rebels to the armed forces and promised them freedom in return. The Continentals gradually also began to allow blacks to fight with a promise of freedom.[9] Tens of thousands of slaves escaped from plantations or other venues during the war, especially in the South.[10] Some joined British lines or disappeared in the disruption of war. After the war, when the British evacuated New York, they transported more than 3,000 Black Loyalists and thousands of other Loyalists to resettle in Nova Scotia and Ontario. A total of more than 29,000 Loyalists refugees were eventually evacuated from New York City alone. The British evacuated thousands of other slaves when they left southern ports, resettling many in the Caribbean and others to England.





Honestly, it's can be confusing.

Cause two groups of people were grouped in one category.

1. Free People of Color - were French Creoles - mulattos

2. Then Free People of Color - these were Black people who gained their freedom.

Usually in town like New Orleans, SC, Virginia - a lot of the people labeled as Free People of Color were not Black.

It was not a large population of Free Black people who were once enslaved in the U.S..
 

Apollo Creed

Look at your face
Supporter
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
56,289
Reputation
13,518
Daps
211,830
Reppin
Handsome Boyz Ent
technically yes but there are some differences

At the end of the day nothing is consistent when it comes to defining Who Americo Liberians when it comes to the Semantics people want to play. At the end of the day they were the descendants of Slaves anything else is a personal problem for other peoples agendas lol.
 

Bawon Samedi

Good bye Coli
Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
42,413
Reputation
18,635
Daps
166,513
Reppin
Good bye Coli(2014-2020)
Someone should do a thread on ethnic identity formation :ehh:

One of the most dishonest things I've seen in this section is when an enslaved African might be born in say the Caribbean prior to any independent countries but was transported at a young age and yet some will still claim that person is Caribbean.

I mean I know you remember this thread. But it KINDA covered how the AA ethnicity was formed.
Defining the "African-American"

But that would be a good thread.
 

BigMan

Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
31,892
Reputation
5,475
Daps
88,193
Someone should do a thread on ethnic identity formation :ehh:

One of the most dishonest things I've seen in this section is when an enslaved African might be born in say the Caribbean prior to any independent countries but was transported at a young age and yet some will still claim that person is Caribbean.
That would be a good thread
Especially when Caribbean identity is a 20th century thing
 

IllmaticDelta

Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
28,893
Reputation
9,531
Daps
81,349
Yeah, the "look what AAs did to Liberia" argument is one #BoatGang loves clinging to.


our foreign,british yoruban bro @Bonk tried to pull that on me and prop up Sierra Leone/Freetown while somehow forgetting Aframs went there not only from the USA and canada but left from Britain too

@IllmaticDelta and his gang love arguing for the sake of it, even when they're wrong. :russ:

He's going to fukk around on this thread and open the pandora's box on the difference between the enormous impact of black Brits in West Africa and how Aframs on the other hand destroyed Liberia. :francis:

@IllmaticDelta let it go.

Let me leave the thread now.

Are Africans and people of African descent who aren't AA black?

nothing wrong over here:pachaha:....see my post :sas1:

Are Africans and people of African descent who aren't AA black?






you do realize there were aframs amongst those british black poor who later become seirre leone creoles?:mjgrin:

Black Loyalists in 18th Century London

The National Archives | Exhibitions & Learning online | Black presence | Work and community

Are Africans and people of African descent who aren't AA black?
 
Top