What culture/country in the diaspora has the most African cultural retention?

[im_sleep]

All that people have to do is talk to their parents or grandparents and ask them about the old people. The first thing that most people are going to learn is that their people moved from those regions at some point. Another thing that they are going to find out is that a lot of their grandparents sounded like James Brown. You literally couldn't understand a lot of what they were saying; until they got a switch and then somehow your ass focused.

Yeah me and my wife’s family’s both have roots that go back to that region even though our more recent roots are mainly in Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Afro-Brazilians, Afro-Belizeans, Afro-Cubans.

 

[BigMan]

Surinamese
and it ain't close

 

[Samori Toure]

That's not the same thing, though. Gullah refers to the people in the coastal and sea island areas .
Arriving to this country through the ports in that region (BEFORE 1808) is not the same thing as being Gullah or being descended from those folks.
That group of folks lived in relative isolation on the coasts and sea islands, which is partially why they were able to retain so much of their heritage(s). Also...when the international slave trade was abolished.....I'd imagine that out of the the enslaved Africans who were smuggled in after that, that some ended up there which replenished the African cultures being blended there.

Your dna tests show that connection, but it's a stretch to say that majority of Black folks in America are related to the Gullah people.
Because of location, I believe that Au Cap (Cap Haitien) (formerly Cap Francios) was the busiest arrival port for Africans in what is now Haiti.

Because of the nature of the slave trade, and people being moved around.....in an area a fraction the size of what the US was in 1808., how likely is it that majority of Haitians would be be directly related to people from Au Cap region.

What you're writing doesn't seem to add up.

It is not a stretch, because Africans were literally brought to the USA to grow rice and indigo. That is literally why they were brought to the USA.

The Gullah: Rice, Slavery, and the Sierra Leone-American Connection | The Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition
http://ricediversity.org/outreach/educatorscorner/documents/Carolina-Gold-Student-handout.pdf

For whatever reason people think that there were millions of Africans brought to the USA as slaves. However, that is not true. Only about 4%-7% of all slaves exported from Africa (between 380,000 to 500,000 people) were brought to British North America (USA). The rest of the slaves over 90%+, were taken to the Caribbean and South America.

Of the slaves that actually came to the USA most of those people arrived in between 1720-1780. So there were never that many slaves in the USA to begin with, which is why 80% of modern African Americans have ties to the Gullah people; because African American population growth occurred through the natural process of child birth rather than through the constant importation of Africans that occurred in the Caribbean and in South America. In fact after 1807 it was against the law to import any person directly into the USA from Africa.

Historical Context: Facts about the Slave Trade and Slavery | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

Virginia was another large area for slaves. Those slaves were used to grow tobacco. So people are confusing themselves about who African Americans are and where they lived. Finally, if you notice most African Americans have very similar genetic roots with most of it coming from the Rice Coast and Congo/Angola. Whereas Caribbean and South Americans have much more Congo and Nigerian DNA.

 

[get these nets]

Afro-Brazilians, Afro-Belizeans, Afro-Cubans.

Ever heard anybody us the term Afro-Haitians?

Me Neither.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Ever heard anybody us the term Afro-Haitians?

Me Neither.

???

 

[get these nets]

It is not a stretch, because Africans were literally brought to the USA to grow rice and indigo. That is literally why they were brought to the USA.

The Gullah: Rice, Slavery, and the Sierra Leone-American Connection | The Gilder Lehrman Center for the Study of Slavery, Resistance, and Abolition
http://ricediversity.org/outreach/educatorscorner/documents/Carolina-Gold-Student-handout.pdf

For whatever reason people think that there were millions of Africans brought to the USA as slaves. However, that is not true. Only about 4%-7% of all slaves exported from Africa (between 380,000 to 500,000 people) were brought to British North America (USA). The rest of the slaves over 90%+, were taken to the Caribbean and South America.

Of the slaves that actually came to the USA most of those people arrived in between 1720-1780. So there were never that many slaves in the USA to begin with, which is why 80% of modern African Americans have ties to the Gullah people; because African American population growth occurred through the natural process of child birth rather than through the constant importation of Africans that occurred in the Caribbean and in South America. In fact after 1807 it was against the law to import any person directly into the USA from Africa.

Historical Context: Facts about the Slave Trade and Slavery | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

Virginia was another large area for slaves. Those slaves were used to grow tobacco. So people are confusing themselves about who African Americans are and where they lived. Finally, if you notice most African Americans have very similar genetic roots with most of it coming from the Rice Coast and Congo/Angola. Whereas Caribbean and South Americans have much more Congo and Nigerian DNA.

I read not a single sentence that addressed what I said.

 

[im_sleep]

That's not the same thing, though. Gullah refers to the people in the coastal and sea island areas .
Arriving to this country through the ports in that region (BEFORE 1808) is not the same thing as being Gullah or being descended from those folks.
That group of folks lived in relative isolation on the coasts and sea islands, which is partially why they were able to retain so much of their heritage(s). Also...when the international slave trade was abolished.....I'd imagine that out of the the enslaved Africans who were smuggled in after that, that some ended up there which replenished the African cultures being blended there.

Your dna tests show that connection, but it's a stretch to say that majority of Black folks in America are related to the Gullah people.
Because of location, I believe that Au Cap (Cap Haitien) (formerly Cap Francios) was the busiest arrival port for Africans in what is now Haiti.

Because of the nature of the slave trade, and people being moved around.....in an area a fraction the size of what the US was in 1808., how likely is it that majority of Haitians would be be directly related to people from Au Cap region.

What you're writing doesn't seem to add up.

The majority of slaves brought illegally to the United States after importation was abolished ended up in the gulf, mainly Texas and Louisiana.

And the majority of those who came through South Carolina’s ports prior to 1808 remained in the region initially, at least a generation or two. You gotta remember the south central states were barely established and Virginia/Maryland were too busy exporting slaves as opposed to importing. The domestic slave trade didn’t start picking up a lot of steam till the 1820’s up to the civil war, so yes you could effectively consider them Gullah/Geechie. Plus there is literally too much cultural overlap to treat them as some sort of totally separate group who developed in a bubble compared to everyone else, if anything they are more of a founder group who retained more, but still part of the same strand IMO.

 

[get these nets]

???

I was saying that for very obvious reasons, the term Afro-Haitian would be redundant.
I'm questioning how people are listing African descended segments of nationalities as having more cultural retention than a country where African people are the vast majority and have been for over 200 years?
This isn't a pissing contest either because in the diaspora we are whatever territory the slave ships dropped us off at.
Just saying this from a logic standpoint.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

I was saying that for very obvious reasons, the term Afro-Haitian would be redundant.
I'm questioning how people are listing African descended segments of nationalities as having more cultural retention than a country where African people are the vast majority and have been for over 200 years?
This isn't a pissing contest either because in the diaspora we are whatever territory the slave ships dropped us off at.
Just saying this from a logic standpoint.

Just because you're the vast majority doesn't necessarily mean you retained the most cultural influence.

 

[get these nets]

The majority of slaves brought illegally to the United States after importation was abolished ended up in the gulf, mainly Texas and Louisiana.

And the majority of those who came through South Carolina’s ports prior to 1808 remained in the region initially, at least a generation or two. You gotta remember the south central states were barely established and Virginia/Maryland were too busy exporting slaves as opposed to importing. The domestic slave trade didn’t start picking up a lot of steam till the 1820’s up to the civil war, so yes you could effectively consider them Gullah/Geechie. Plus there is literally too much cultural overlap to treat them as some sort of totally separate group who developed in a bubble compared to everyone else, if anything they are more of a founder group who retained more, but still part of the same strand IMO.

interesting....gonna respond later.

 

[Samori Toure]

I read not a single sentence that addressed what I said.

It did, but you are just not comprehending the movement of people in the USA. I am telling you that most (not all) of the slaves that came to the USA were in that region. The slaves spread out later when other lands were opened up in the USA, i.e., after the Louisiana Purchase were slaves were then sold into places like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, etc.

I think that you might be confused about where the people were originally in the slave trade (Virginia, Georgia, and Carolina (it was just one Carolina until the early 1700s); and where they ended up later after more of South was acquired from the French and the Spanish and used to grow stuff like cotton and sugar. That later movement is where we literally get the phrase "sold down the river" from.

 

[get these nets]

Just because you're the vast majority doesn't necessarily mean you retained the most cultural influence.

The concentrated cultural retention of, say Maroons or Garifuna, in those respective nationalities/cultures are comparable to the genetic and cultural African-ness of Haiti in general.

 

[get these nets]

It did, but you are just not comprehending the movement of people in the USA. I am telling you that most (not all) of the slaves that came to the USA were in that region. The slaves spread out later when other lands were opened up in the USA, i.e., after the Louisiana Purchase were slaves were then sold into places like Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, etc.

I think that you might be confused about where the people were originally in the slave trade (Virginia, Georgia, and Carolina (it was just one Carolina until the early 1700s); and where they ended up later after more of South was acquired from the French and the Spanish and used to grow stuff like cotton and sugar. That later movement is where we literally get the phrase "sold down the river" from.

ok. thanks will reply later.

 

[BigMan]

The concentrated cultural retention of, say Maroons or Garifuna, in those respective nationalities/cultures are comparable to the genetic and cultural African-ness of Haiti in general.

Nah

Maroons>>every other African descendant group includes Haitians
Haitian culture is a creole culture