Were Africans ever in the majority on the American continent?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

We’re dealing with an imprecise question about a trait that is hard to define. The OP can either be tossed as unanswerable or we can try to narrow the parameters to provide “an” answer that may be unsatisfactory in many ways yet still shed some light. This isn’t unusual in questions here.

Look again at the actual OP.

@griffin1977

At the height of the slave trade to North and South America, did Africans ever out number all Europeans and Native Americans?

Two parameters emerge immediately. One is that the entire New World is being looked at. The other is that the time period is narrow. When was the height of the slave trade?

The volume of slaves carried off from Africa reached thirty thousand per year in the 1690s and eighty-five thousand per year a century later. More than eight out of ten Africans forced into the slave trade made their journeys in the century and a half after 1700.

By 1820, nearly four Africans for every one European had crossed the Atlantic. About four out of every five females that traversed the Atlantic were from Africa.

The majority of enslaved Africans were brought to British North America between 1720 and 1780. The decade 1821 to 1830 still saw over 80,000 people a year leaving Africa in slave ships. Well over a million more – one tenth of the volume carried off in the slave trade era – followed within the next twenty years.

That appears to put it between 1790 and 1830. Using 1800 is a convenient year.

That also means that we don’t have to worry about the spread of genes throughout the population for the past 200 years. In the 18th century social sanctions and control of slave populations reduced opportunities for contact. The possible contacts are also limited to just a few generations. All of this puts severe limits on the number of descendants.

Social factors in fact place boundaries on all the data. Race is a social construct, we know today, and then it was purely one since they had no understanding of genetics. Descendants of African slaves were also considered African slaves, even if a settler or indigenous native were part of their ancestry. (As always, this is not 100% the case but the small exceptions wash out in the general rounding.) The distinctions made by people at the time or calculated by historians or anthropologists since cover the vast majority of the population.

How are these calculated? That’s the much harder question. Some census data existed. The first U.S. census was 1790. Unfortunately most Latin American countries did not have censuses until later. Estimates must be made, which leads to wide error bars. It’s easier to concentrate on a single country’s history, obviously, and estimates for larger areas are built up by adding up the estimates for individual countries, which results in an even larger spread of estimates. However, this is a specialized academic area that has been systematically combing through all available numbers for a generation of scholars. Like any other area in science it has disagreements about specifics, but the numbers can’t be dismissed out of hand.

If it’s even approximately true that 18 million people counted as indigenous natives lived in the New World in 1800, and only 10.7 million African slaves had been brought in total, with many of those after 1800, then it seems implausible to suggest that the total number of living Africans and their descendants was larger than the total number of living indigenous natives and European settlers combined.

If you consider the question unanswerable, that is a legitimate position by today’s standards, although people living in 1800 would not understand how you could say such a thing. Conversely, analyzing what people living in 1800 would have said on the subject is an answerable question, if only tentatively. And that answer is “no.”

[John_Mace]

@Blake

Who is focussing on countries?

Posts #6 and #7. Actually, #6 is focused on a small part of one country.

[robert_columbia]

@HMS_Irruncible

My understanding is that in the 1750’s or so, the population of South Carolina was 80% enslaved Africans. This was the driving force behind certain laws and business enterprises designed to attract (white) Presbyterians from Northern Ireland to immigrate to South Carolina around that time.

There is a theory that many fundamentalists of Celtic origin wore red bandannas as an indication of their allegiance to Protestantism (or, more specifically, Presbyterianism), which is why the descendants of those people in the US are called rednecks.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@robert_columbia

There is a theory that many fundamentalists of Celtic origin wore red bandannas as an indication of their allegiance to Protestantism (or, more specifically, Presbyterianism), which is why the descendants of those people in the US are called rednecks.

People do repeat this, but it seems to have a slight problem with complete lack of evidence.

I, too, have heard the theory that the term “redneck” originally referred to 17th century Scottish Presbyterians who signed anti-Anglican proclamations in their own blood and wore red scarves or kerchiefs to signal their beliefs. According to this theory, their descendants eventually settled in the Appalachian region of the US and came to be known as “rednecks” because of those scarves. It is true, of course, that Appalachia was largely settled by Scottish and Irish immigrants. But the fact that the term “redneck” was apparently never applied to the Presbyterians while they were still in Scotland and actually wearing the scarves poses a problem for this theory.

Various struggles by coal miners in Appalachia for the right to unionize also are said to have involved red neckwear, but this theory lacks any actual evidence connecting these struggles to “redneck.”

The accepted theory among linguists about “redneck” is the one you’ve deduced on your own: that the term was applied to poor white Southerners because long hours working in the fields caused a permanent sunburn on the back of their necks.

[Colibri]

@Peremensoe

But they are not Africans, even displaced. They are distinct peoples, different from any found in Africa.

I take the OP at his word, unless he amends himself.

You’re welcome to interpret it as you please. However, the other interpretation that people of entirely or partial African descent are intended is also an interesting question, regardless of what the OP meant.

@Exapno_Mapcase

We’re dealing with an imprecise question about a trait that is hard to define. The OP can either be tossed as unanswerable or we can try to narrow the parameters to provide “an” answer that may be unsatisfactory in many ways yet still shed some light. This isn’t unusual in questions here.

Right.

[clairobscur]

@Exapno_Mapcase

In the sense that everybody on earth can trace an ancestor back to Charlemagne, this is a truism.

Well, then, give your own definition of “African”

The amount of contemporary intermingling of populations before 1800 was also limited compared to the centuries since.

I would suspect it was exactly the contrary : much more mixing before 1800 than after.

Native populations in the Caribbeans were largely replaced by slaves. Those in the Southern U.S. were driven west before significant numbers of slaves or their descendants could come in contact with them.

The OP asks about the Americas as a whole. The southern USA aren’t particularly representative. If anything, the huge concern about racial miscegenation there was rather an oddity.

[clairobscur]

@John_Mace

Why are people focusing on countries when the OP clearly states “continent”. The question I’d first ask the OP is which American continent is he talking about-- north or south?.

If the OP is European, “America” is for him only one continent, that includes both North America and South America.

[John_Mace]

@clairobscur

I would suspect it was exactly the contrary : much more mixing before 1800 than after.

I would have chosen 1500 or 1600 (not 1800), but The Age of Discovery is widely recognized as the beginning of an unprecedented mixing of populations. Are you seriously doubting that?

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@clairobscur

I would suspect it was exactly the contrary : much more mixing before 1800 than after.

How would that be possible? Literally, physically possible?

First, some countries or areas were far more likely to receive slaves than others. In fact, the vast majority of slaves were brought to only three areas: Brazil, the Caribbean, and the southern U.S. These three are dwarfed by the size of the rest of the New World. That alone limits the possibility for relations and descendants. (Limits, not eliminates.)

Second, slave populations were subject to strict controls. Even in areas where slaves were numerous, perhaps even majorities, they did not have rights of free access to native populations. Owners bred slaves to slaves to produce more slaves and generally kept slaves isolated to reduce possibilities for escape. The opportunities for intimacy during slavery were small compared to the opportunities open to free peoples.

That’s why the proportion of intermingling of slave and free populations before 1800 across the entire New World must be lower than the intermingling of free populations after, even with a period in the 19th century in which slavery continued.

[Colibri]

@Exapno_Mapcase

The lowest estimates put the indigenous population of South America alone at about 4 million at the end of the 17th century, at the very beginning of the African slave trade. By 1800 that had gone up to 18 million. Add in more millions in North America plus all the settlers.

I think you may have misread a figure there. The figure of 18 million is the maximum estimate for the indigenous population before 1492. The same article says that all of Latin America had a population of only 17 million in 1800.

@Blake

If the indigenous population of South America was 18 million, that probably included 12 million Indigenous people with African ancestry and 12 million with European ancestry.

See above-the 18 million estimate if for the pre-Columbian population. While your general point is correct, I don’t think there would have been as much overlap as that. People who would have been identified as indigenous in a census during the colonial period would have generally have been those that still spoke an indigenous language and had relatively little African/European admixture. People of mixed race who spoke Spanish, even if they were mostly of indigenous ancestry, would have been counted among the mestizo population. Mulattoes or zambos (indigenous/African) would have been either counted separately or lumped with blacks.

In Panama at times during the colonial period the black slave population at times exceeded the combined white/mestizo/subjugated Indian population, but that didn’t include free Indians (though it also didn’t include free escaped slaves who had sizable communities in some places). Panama did have a relatively large number of slaves compared to some other places in Latin America, though.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@Colibri

I think you may have misread a figure there. The figure of 18 million is the maximum estimate for the indigenous population before 1492. The same article says that all of Latin America had a population of only 17 million in 1800.

Yes, the 18 million is a typo for 17 million. Since the discussion was about indigenous peoples I interpreted the sentence as implying that number applied to the indigenous population. That’s risky to do in Wikipedia, I know, but the footnote goes to “La catastrophe démographique” (The Demographical Catastrophe"), L’Histoire n°322, July–August 2007, p. 17. 17 million seems extremely low for the total population of Latin America.

[jtur88]

The discussion seems to have veered off the track from what I read as the intent of the OP. I think he meant “socially accepted” as either white or black, not genetically verifiable. Before the widespread movement to abolish slavery in the mid 1800s, it was pretty clear in the Americas who was regarded in the social fabric as Negro, and who was not. The question, then, is about whether there was ever a time when those socially regarded as Negroes ever outnumbered those who were not. In some cases, even census records are exact on this. Obviously, there is still going to be some ambiguity, but not nearly as much as that which clouds the water in terms of defining inhabitants with mixed ancestry, which is clearly problematic.

[MikeS]

@Exapno_Mapcase

They might have been on some Caribbean islands, but those populations were always intrinsically tiny.

Slaves, mulattoes and “free coloreds” vastly outnumbered whites settlers in Haiti shortly before the Haitian Revolution. Wikipedia cites numbers of 32,000 whites, 28,000 mulattoes and free blacks, and 452,000 black slaves. I would argue that these aren’t “tiny” numbers for the time and place — the area we now call Canada, for example, had less than half of this number of people living there at the time.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

@MikeS

Slaves, mulattoes and “free coloreds” vastly outnumbered whites settlers in Haiti shortly before the Haitian Revolution. Wikipedia cites numbers of 32,000 whites, 28,000 mulattoes and free blacks, and 452,000 black slaves. I would argue that these aren’t “tiny” numbers for the time and place — the area we now call Canada, for example, had less than half of this number of people living there at the time.

Haiti is certainly an interesting case. I had also checked the numbers there. Half a million is an impressive concentration, but it’s less than 10% of the U.S. population. And, fascinatingly, less than 10% of the Mexican population which was slightly larger than the U.S. (Although other sources give those as 6 million and 4 million.) Still, those two countries alone held 10 million, and the rest of the New World probably had at least as many. That puts Haiti at maybe 5% of the whole, not enough to affect the overall percentages much. The U.S. and Brazil probably had about 1 million “Negro” population each, Mexico a much smaller number. That does not add up to half the total New World population, which is the question at hand.

[John_Mace]

@jtur88

The discussion seems to have veered off the track from what I read as the intent of the OP. I think he meant “socially accepted” as either white or black, not genetically verifiable. Before the widespread movement to abolish slavery in the mid 1800s, it was pretty clear in the Americas who was regarded in the social fabric as Negro, and who was not.

Was it? Honest question, as you seem to be extrapolating the social norms of the US to the entire 2 continents.

[septimus]

I assume that by African, OP means someone from Africa or most of whose recent forebearers were from Africa. Perhaps 50% mullatoes should be counted at 50%.

But nitpicking a digression to the misconstruing: I’ve never previously heard the claim that
Everyone on Earth is descended from Charlemagne.
The claim that I’ve heard and believe is
Every living person with singificant European ancestry is descended from Charlemagne.
There’s 1200 years between Charlemagne and living persons, a long time for progeny to proliferate. In a previous thread, SDMB agreed that every living Native American had a post-Columbian European ancestor, but that ancestor might have been born in 1600, only 800 years from Charlemagne, and lack a Charlemagne descent.

There are too many unknowns to be sure about much of the “everyone is 30th-cousins” stuff. For all I know the first indented statement above may be true. But it is a much stronger than the 2nd indented statement, which is the only such claim I’ve heard.

[John_Mace]

@septimus

But nitpicking a digression to the misconstruing: I’ve never previously heard the claim that
Everyone on Earth is descended from Charlemagne.
The claim that I’ve heard and believe is
Every living person with singificant European ancestry is descended from Charlemagne.
There’s 1200 years between Charlemagne and living persons, a long time for progeny to proliferate. In a previous thread, SDMB agreed that every living Native American had a post-Columbian European ancestor, but that ancestor might have been born in 1600, only 800 years from Charlemagne, and lack a Charlemagne descent.

There are too many unknowns to be sure about much of the “everyone is 30th-cousins” stuff. For all I know the first indented statement above may be true. But it is a much stronger than the 2nd indented statement, which is the only such claim I’ve heard.

You’re right. The identical ancestor point (where everyone alive at the time is either the ancestor of everyone today or the ancestor of no one) is generally thought to be somewhere between 5,000 - 15,000 years ago. Long before Charlemagne was born.

[Exapno_Mapcase]

Sorry. I’ll take Carl Zimmer’s word for it over you two.

Their results, published today in PLOS Biology, both confirm Chang’s mathematical approach and enrich it. Even within the past thousand years, Ralph and Coop found, people on opposite sides of the continent share a lot of segments in common–so many, in fact, that it’s statistically impossible for them to have gotten them all from a single ancestor. Instead, someone in Turkey and someone in England have to share a lot of ancestors. In fact, as Chang suspected, the only way to explain the DNA is to conclude that everyone who lived a thousand years ago who has any descendants today is an ancestor of every European. Charlemagne for everyone!

[John_Mace]

He’s talking about Europeans. Not everyone on earth. Did you read the entire article?:

Ralph and Coop’s study may provide a new tool for reconstructing the history of humans on every continent, not just Europe.

[septimus]

@John_Mace

You’re right. The identical ancestor point (where everyone alive at the time is either the ancestor of everyone today or the ancestor of no one) is generally thought to be somewhere between 5,000 - 15,000 years ago. Long before Charlemagne was born.

I’m glad you agree with me. HOWEVER the point in time where ONE person is ancestral to every living person is different from, and much later than, the identical ancestor point.

(And who would that one person be? I’ll guess it would be someone from Central Asia, perhaps a few centuries before Charlemagne.)