IslandMix - Soca, Reggae, Zouk and Caribbean Entertainment

Not in color, but they are dark and if they identify as Black (some do) then they are Black.

Let's be frank and not make light of the repeatitive rape of black women by white men. A black man(rich or poor) could not even look at a white woman in those days. Any mixing was by far almost always white male, black female. A white male could have his way back then, and in some cases even today.

So explain to me why 40% of European admixture in Afro Americans is from European female ancestry? And this considering that the level of infanticide by white women was much higher than by Black women because of the repercussions?

And by the way, Black male white female marriages were higher than the other way around.

Whille southern colonies were already outlawing interracial marriage in the 1690's and Wyoming was the last state to prohibit it, in 1913, joining 41 others -- every state where the black population reached 5 percent, there were periods in time where various states did not have anti-miscegenation laws, and 9 states never outlawed miscegenation. Though some had repealed their anti-miscegenation laws before the Civil War, 16 still had them on the books by the time the United States Supreme Court finally declared them unconstitutional in 1967.

The first law to deter racial intermarriage was enacted in the early colonial period. The General Assembly of the Colony of Maryland in 1661 deplored the fact that there were many cases of intermarriage between white female servants and black slaves. It legislated that if any free born white woman intermarried with a black slave; she would have to serve her husband’s master as long as the slave lived (Burger 10-11).

In 1681, a new Maryland law decreed that any freeborn white woman who married a black slave with the permission of the slave’s master could retain her freedom. However, the master or mistress of the intermarried slave and the clergyman performing the ceremony were to be penalized by a fine. This law was an attempt to deter racial intermarriage by shifting the penalty to those allegedly responsible for the action of slaves (Burger 11).
Some other colonies also legislated against black-white marriages. North Carolina in 1715 set up a heavy fine and a period of servitude for any white woman who married a Negro. It also provided a 50-pound fine to the clergyman who officiated. Massachusetts in 1705, and Pennsylvania in 1725 also passed similar legislation (Burger 11).
In the legislatures if several of the states which had no prohibitive laws to prevent black-white marriages, bills to prevent such, were introduced several times in states such as WI, MASS, CONN, WA, KS, MN, IA, IL, MI, OH, PA, NY. Congress also considered bills to prevent this in D.C. The states which had laws against black white marriages followed a similar pattern, mostly southern and western states, while northern ones had no laws. After the U.S. became a nation, eventually 33 states prohibited one or more forms of interracial marriage (Burger 13).
After the adoption of the 14th amendment to the constitution, July 28, 1868, the question immediately arose whether or not state laws prohibiting intermarriage denied colored people the equality guaranteed to them by the amendment. Most cases were decided in State courts and the laws were upheld (Burger 13).

In 1883, the United States Supreme Court upheld a state statute upholding a larger penalty for adultery or fornication when committed by members of different races (Pace vs. Alabama). A similar Florida statute was overturned in 1962, but even as late as 1964 (just 35 years ago folks), 19 states still had these laws existing (with Indiana and Wyoming being the two non-Southern states with laws against miscegenation) (David 1).

Why were all these laws being enacted at different times? Because miscegenation and marriage between Blacks and Whites was going on since the get go.

the admixture is about 40% from White women, so the rape claim is false. And when considering abortions the level was probably higher.

Measured overall, Afro-European interbreeding in the U.S. has been gender-symmetrical. It was strongly BM/WF in the northeast, strongly WM/BF in the Carolinas and Georgia, and balanced along the Gulf Coast. Today’s U.S. Afro-European admixture could not possibly have been the result of master-on-slave rape unless you assume that female slaveowners raped their male slaves.

Regarding Euro DNA in African Americans:

http://backintyme.com/admixture/collins01.pdf (2002) p742 shows 20 percent mean based on microsatellites and indels. 75% of the samples were from northern California and 25 % were from all over the U.S.

http://backintyme.com/admixture/collins02.pdf (2002) p. 568 shows about 18 percent (all from northern California) just by eyeballing the scatter diagram.

http://backintyme.com/admixture/fernandez01.pdf (2003) p. 907 shows 17 percent in Alabama, 19 percent in Maryland, and 17 percent in New York. Unfortunately, the 95% confidence interval was +/- 15 percent.

http://backintyme.com/admixture/hoggart01.pdf (2003) p. 1497 shows 22 percent in Washington DC.

http://backintyme.com/admixture/kayser01.pdf (2003) p. 628 shows a range of 11 percent to 33 percent, highest in NY, OR and PA, lowest in MD, MO, and TX. The 95% confidence interval was around 5 percent.

http://backintyme.com/admixture/parra01.pdf (1998) p. 1847 shows a range: from lows of 7 percent (Sapelo Island GA) and 11 percent (Charleston SC), to highs of 20 percent (Pittsburgh) and 23 percent (New Orleans). All have very tight confidence intervals (around +/- 1%). This is probably the best study to start with.

http://backintyme.com/admixture/parra02.pdf (2001) p. 21 shows a close-up view of SC, with ranges from 3.5 percent (Geechee/Gullah) to 18 percent (Columbia) with good confidence intervals (although not as good as the prior study).

http://backintyme.com/admixture/parra03.pdf (2004) p. 556 shows 21.3 overall, but does not give regional breakdown.

http://backintyme.com/admixture/shriver01.pdf (2001) p. 391 shows 18.6% +/- 1.5% in Washington DC.

http://backintyme.com/admixture/wang01.pdf (2003) p.760 shows 10 regions, raging from lows of 12 percent (Charleston) and 14 percent (one Philadelphia neighborhood) to highs of 23 percent (New Orleans, a different Philadelphia neighborhood) and 21 percent (Pittsburgh and New York). Mediocre (but not horrible) confidence intervals.

For historical studies of gender-directionality of intermarriages, see the references and citations about Boston in http://backintyme.com/Essay050801.htm and the summary of the late Gary Mills's work in http://backintyme.com/Essay041015.htm.

As for gender symmetry:

http://backintyme.com/admixture/kayser01.pdf

http://backintyme.com/admixture/parra01.pdf

http://backintyme.com/admixture/parra02.pdf

http://backintyme.com/admixture/wang01.pdf

The 60-40 ratio of BM/WF to WM/BF intermarriages has been relatively steady since antebellum times.

Click http://backintyme.com/rawdata/asymmetry.xls for an excel spreadsheet showing percentages of BM/WF versus WM/BF intermarriages reported in every U.S. decennial census since 1850. Click http://backintyme.com/rawdata/appendixa.doc explaining how to download the data for yourself from the U.S. Census Bureau.

For a typical example showing that BM/WF was about 60-40 to WM/BF in antebellum Alabama, see Gary B. Mills, “Miscegenation and the Free Negro in Antebellum ‘Anglo’ Alabama: A Reexamination of Southern Race Relations,” Journal of American History, 68 (no. 1, 1981), 16-34, 22.

For the most extreme example in U.S. history, see Adelaide M. Cromwell, The Other Brahmins: Boston‘s Black Upper Class, 1750-1950 (Fayetteville, 1994), 183, 271n40 for a tabulation showing that BM/WF marriages were thirty times more common in mid-nineteenth-century Boston than WM/BF marriages.

For an explanation of why this ratio remained relatively stable throughout U.S. history, see John Hope Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom, [1st ] ed. (New York, 1947), 215-17.

Oto clearly you do not read the sacarsm in my text, quick question did you mean more likely... in your text i quoted earlier?

It would work as well, but more like works as well.

I am not refer ing to possibility but stating they have it wrong, East Africans are the founding population.

There has been back migration, but a lot of the features originated there.

I would concentrate on the area of the great lakes..

Naw that is where the bearded look originated with Sasquatch

naw young i don't kid! Blacks are mixed with alot of cultures in american, from white, native american, asian etc. So the african blood line has probably been water down to it's limits. But the blacks or african american stated out as africans.

A it's a damn shame elp gotta be the jackass of my response, but ah.

Too PREDICTABLE to get a SERIOUS response....do you find yourself waking up at NIGHTS screaming out ADMIXTURE, ADMIXTURE, MIXED. MIXED?

you're clueless as much as you're shameless in your ignorance. enjoy your life.....and who is this elp that you're talking about?

well how many people on the planet are black in color? the term black is a social and cultural construct, at best. hence, we have people with no DIRECT african bloodlines who are considered to be, and sometimes consider themselves to be black.

just stating the facts, this may be a shock to you right but...............the blacks in america are not full blooded africans. We are a mixed people, damn please read up on black american history. If reading is not your thing, pbs has some shows.

elp, elq what every your name is, i do enjoy my life it's a damn shame your blind ass is missing the point.

If PROPAGANDA and OBSESSION is not your PRACTICE then what you just MENTIONED is WORTHLESS.

And if it is your PRACTICE, it is still WORTHLESS.

Again, I hope you do not wakeup at nights SCREAMING out ADMIXTURE ADMIXTURE, MIXED, MIXED.

it's a shame you walk into a room with no knowledge of who you are speaking to and end up sounding like the blind deaf dumb one.........
like i said, live your blissful life.

hmm the point is this not really the skin tone but given the BLACK AFRICAN the history that he deserves and some some DARK CAUSSAIN HIS STORY, it were big lips, black people, even described in the bible as being cursed, who built the pyramids,

shame, You are not BLACK, you are not AFRICAN.. you just an ignorant DUMB DARKIE