History channel shows Hannibal as a Black man. Whites go crazy cry revisionism.

[gene cisco]

Your post is all over the place..

We are indigenous to this land we are not "indians",

the folks crackers consider the quinessential american "indian' are a

genetic mixture of the black olmecs and the chinese that came later......

you could just look at their features to see this, you dont need sources just use

your eyes...and dont be deceived by cac revisionist history....

I base my facts on simple logic.. some folks have it some folks dont..

And nobody is dissing our GLORIOUS history in places like Mali..

but this topic is on Hannibal and how many cacs cannot get over the fact

he was a black african...

you just like to wander all over the place... talkin about fleas and shit...

just out of curiosity have you ever represented in the identity thread..

because the only folks who have problem with obvious logical facts

like Hannibal being a black African are cacs...

I posted proof of Aboriginal Australian DNA in the Americas going back thousands of years, but you have not shown any sources to back your claim. Just "braids are African and look at their noses"(as if other groups don't have such noses and lips -- such as native Australians who are genetically closer to Asians and are Neanderthal mutts like cacs). Post some sources. I hope you aren't confusing 10,000s of thousands of years ago with 3,000 years ago again. Because it's well known that there is Asian in North Americans going back that fucking far.

So just because a person doesn't agree with your fantasies and wants proof other than argument by assertion they are a cac? That's child-like reasoning and is the go to for someone losing a debate just like calling someone a coon. I give a fuck what race Hannibal was. All I would like is proof either way. You've presented none to say he was black.

North Africans aren't all black and haven't been for thousands and thousands of years(you do know that people came back into Africa 10s of thousands of years ago). There is no proof about Hannibal one way or another, but in order to make your claim, you have tried to turn West Asian people into black people. You've tried to make the Phoenicians black with no fucking evidence. You've claimed 'we' civilized Europeans after the West Asians invaded Africa in the 600s. Historians know the moors were Berbers and Arabs, yet how many African Americans' DNA traces to Berber or Arab?!??!? Not any of the berber people whether light version or dark version. So where are you getting your info??!?!?

Why do you obsess with North Africa and east Africa instead of west Africa? Your arguments are so weak even your own sources have been used again you.

 

[exiledking]

And I've already shown the evidence of bubonic plague in Egypt. As usual, I sourced it. Just didn't say "it's true, it's true!" without any fucking sources.

youre asking him for evidence and sources after he already posted links and found out they all don't support what he's saying. So now he doesn't even try anymore. Asking him for good proof to support his arguments you may as well be asking for the moon and the stars bruh

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

cuz Im entertained watching you struggle in so many ways and I know I'm not the only one. The responses only keep this thread up so people can read your nonsense and Multiple ownages. notice that other guy who was using the same bullshit argument and quotes he didn't read, left. At least he had sense to do that. You keep telling me who else is cosigning. I don't care who cosigns you. YOU are the person w the bad credibility all on your own. I'd be more worried the day I'm on the same side of a debate with YOU Lol

dude you was cosigned by the boards most delusional poster birds of a feather flock together...

 

[exiledking]

dude you was cosigned by the boards most delusional poster birds of a feather flock together...

The most delusional poster is you

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

youre asking him for evidence and sources after he already posted links and found out they all don't support what he's saying. So now he doesn't even try anymore. Asking him for good proof to support his arguments you may as well be asking for the moon and the stars bruh

nothing I said was debunked all yall do is ask for time lines an ask more questions..

dude even started talkin about fleas and shit...

this is just amusing at this point.

yall like a bunch of midget clowns competing for

head court jester.

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

The most delusional poster is you

coming from you thats a compliment

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

I posted proof of Aboriginal Australian DNA in the Americas going back thousands of years, but you have not shown any sources to back your claim. Just "braids are African and look at their noses"(as if other groups don't have such noses and lips -- such as native Australians who are genetically closer to Asians and are Neanderthal mutts like cacs). Post some sources. I hope you aren't confusing 10,000s of thousands of years ago with 3,000 years ago again. Because it's well known that there is Asian in North Americans going back that fucking far.

So just because a person doesn't agree with your fantasies and wants proof other than argument by assertion they are a cac? That's child-like reasoning and is the go to for someone losing a debate just like calling someone a coon. I give a fuck what race Hannibal was. All I would like is proof either way. You've presented none to say he was black.

North Africans aren't all black and haven't been for thousands and thousands of years(you do know that people came back into Africa 10s of thousands of years ago). There is no proof about Hannibal one way or another, but in order to make your claim, you have tried to turn West Asian people into black people. You've tried to make the Phoenicians black with no fucking evidence. You've claimed 'we' civilized Europeans after the West Asians invaded Africa in the 600s. Historians know the moors were Berbers and Arabs, yet how many African Americans' DNA traces to Berber or Arab?!??!? Not any of the berber people whether light version or dark version. So where are you getting your info??!?!?

Why do you obsess with North Africa and east Africa instead of west Africa? Your arguments are so weak even your own sources have been used again you.

you went from fleas to austrllians...

un fuckin beliveable

Hanibal was a black african get over it...

 

[gene cisco]

youre asking him for evidence and sources after he already posted links and found out they all don't support what he's saying. So now he doesn't even try anymore. Asking him for good proof to support his arguments you may as well be asking for the moon and the stars bruh

He hasn't just dug one grave for himself, he has dug an entire graveyard. No proof on Hannibal. Claims Egyptians lived to be 200eek: ) and I debunked that with source. Claims to be a Moor yet our ancestors came from a different part of Africa and DNA tests confirm that(and it don't get more recent than that). Talks about cacs and fleas, lice, and rats when Egypt had the same problems back then. Claims the Afro in Afro-Asiatic totally takes non-black West Asians out of the equation.

He continues to amaze me with his claims. The 200 year one was a new one to me. I'm trying to see what other fantasy shit he comes up with.

 

[gene cisco]

you went from fleas to austrllians...

un fuckin beliveable

Hanibal was a black african get over it...

SOURCE?!?!?!?! Just by saying he was a black African, you admit there were and are non-black Africans. PROVE which one he was. If you do, you will be famous.

 

[gene cisco]

Here you go mrfreddy...

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hannibals-ethnicity-and-physical-appearance-2020107 <-- This is what we call a SOURCE



n 2014 archaeologist and historian Patrick Hunt revised and updated Britannica’s biography of the Carthaginian general Hannibal, who was born in 247 bce and died c.183–181 bce. Drawing on years of research, Hunt added vivid details about Hannibal’s life, addressed myths and corrected errors, and provided a gripping account of Hannibal’s exploits. Later in 2014, reacting to a 19th-century engraving that Britannica’s editors had added to the article, a reader raised, in his words, “the issue of whether Hannibal was black or white.” Hunt responded in detail, making clear that Hannibal’s physical appearance is ultimately unknown and that his ethnicity cannot be easily identified or mapped onto modern identities. Hunt’s explanation, published in February 2015 in the comments section following the biography of Hannibal at Britannica.com, is reproduced (with some modifications) below.

First, we have no certain contemporary image from his own time to show us what he looked like. The primary source closest to his time is the Greek historian Polybius who lived almost a century later, and he gives no verbal description. No other ancient sources that have survived do either. We do have the curious information that he was possibly prone to disguising himself at times. There may be a few silver coins from the Punic culture in Spain, most likely minted around the mid-to-late 3rd century bce in what soon became known as Carthago Nova (nowCartagena), but these coin images are arguable because they may depict his father, Hamilcar, or other relatives instead. After Hannibal’s life, the Romans likely recalled every silver Punic coin they could find—including any that might have shown Hannibal—and melted them down to make new Roman coins with their own images. So we are left with mostly modern interpretations from long after the Roman Empire.


Second, regarding his DNA, as far as we know, we have no skeleton, fragmentary bones, or physical traces of him, so establishing his ethnicity would be mostly speculative. From what we think we know about his family ancestry, however, his Barcid family (if that’s even the right name) has been generally understood as descending from Phoenician aristocracy. If still the same relative ethnic or DNA group, which is also very difficult to prove since so many different peoples have moved into the region since, including peoples from Arabian homelands, his original ancestry would be located in what is modern Lebanon today. As far as we know, little to no Africanization—if that is an acceptable term—happened there in that region before or during his era. So attempting to say much about his original ancestry from Phoenicia is very difficult. On the other hand, since the Phoenicians arrived and then later settled in what is now Tunisia relatively early, possibly beginning around almost 1,000 years before Hannibal, it is very possible his family had intermixed in DNA with peoples then living in North Africa. But this too seems quite distant from any potential Nilotic DNA stream including via the “superhighway” of the Nile River. The distance between the Nile and Tunis is almost four times as far as the distance between the Nile and Tyre, but that may not be as important as our lack of knowledge about any potential spreading of African DNA overland across North Africa at that time, which is again possible but not known. The barrier of the Sahara would otherwise make any such ancient DNA distribution from south to north difficult but not impossible. New studies suggest that around Hannibal’s time there was likely more trans-Saharan travel via Garamantian oases [i.e., oases controlled by the Garamantes, a Berber people], so we shouldn’t deny any possible Africanization of the region of Carthage.

If Africanization was part of Hannibal’s heritage, I and other scholars would be most interested in seeing the evidence, as we should always be ready to learn and change our perceptions when needed. If our human ancestry derives originally from Africa, it was so long ago, possibly hundreds of thousands of years in the past, who can realistically say what that original DNA was like and what people looked like then? We still must have much more hard science conducted for years into the future to even come close to understanding that prehistory. I must add just as a personal note that my own father had some African ancestry because it appears in our DNA even if it may not show in external phenotypes. Sadly, “race” has too often been a divisive political term.

So once again, who knows? You could see the historian didn't know which term to use for 'black' and chose Africanization. So anyone who has definite proof Hannibal was black OR not black can become famous. Go for it.

The part in blue is the fucking truth. As information is presented, we should be willing to change. True learners do that. Others dig themselves deeper fucking holes(having to make Phoenicians black with no fucking proof for one).

 

[CharlieBrown]

The most delusional poster is you

Wow.

You're still trying?? I tapped out loooooong ago.

If you spend all of your time arguing with people who are nuts, you'll be exhausted and the nuts will still be nuts. -Scott Adams

I'm just sayin...

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

Here you go mrfreddy...

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hannibals-ethnicity-and-physical-appearance-2020107 <-- This is what we call a SOURCE



n 2014 archaeologist and historian Patrick Hunt revised and updated Britannica’s biography of the Carthaginian general Hannibal, who was born in 247 bce and died c.183–181 bce. Drawing on years of research, Hunt added vivid details about Hannibal’s life, addressed myths and corrected errors, and provided a gripping account of Hannibal’s exploits. Later in 2014, reacting to a 19th-century engraving that Britannica’s editors had added to the article, a reader raised, in his words, “the issue of whether Hannibal was black or white.” Hunt responded in detail, making clear that Hannibal’s physical appearance is ultimately unknown and that his ethnicity cannot be easily identified or mapped onto modern identities. Hunt’s explanation, published in February 2015 in the comments section following the biography of Hannibal at Britannica.com, is reproduced (with some modifications) below.

First, we have no certain contemporary image from his own time to show us what he looked like. The primary source closest to his time is the Greek historian Polybius who lived almost a century later, and he gives no verbal description. No other ancient sources that have survived do either. We do have the curious information that he was possibly prone to disguising himself at times. There may be a few silver coins from the Punic culture in Spain, most likely minted around the mid-to-late 3rd century bce in what soon became known as Carthago Nova (nowCartagena), but these coin images are arguable because they may depict his father, Hamilcar, or other relatives instead. After Hannibal’s life, the Romans likely recalled every silver Punic coin they could find—including any that might have shown Hannibal—and melted them down to make new Roman coins with their own images. So we are left with mostly modern interpretations from long after the Roman Empire.


Second, regarding his DNA, as far as we know, we have no skeleton, fragmentary bones, or physical traces of him, so establishing his ethnicity would be mostly speculative. From what we think we know about his family ancestry, however, his Barcid family (if that’s even the right name) has been generally understood as descending from Phoenician aristocracy. If still the same relative ethnic or DNA group, which is also very difficult to prove since so many different peoples have moved into the region since, including peoples from Arabian homelands, his original ancestry would be located in what is modern Lebanon today. As far as we know, little to no Africanization—if that is an acceptable term—happened there in that region before or during his era. So attempting to say much about his original ancestry from Phoenicia is very difficult. On the other hand, since the Phoenicians arrived and then later settled in what is now Tunisia relatively early, possibly beginning around almost 1,000 years before Hannibal, it is very possible his family had intermixed in DNA with peoples then living in North Africa. But this too seems quite distant from any potential Nilotic DNA stream including via the “superhighway” of the Nile River. The distance between the Nile and Tunis is almost four times as far as the distance between the Nile and Tyre, but that may not be as important as our lack of knowledge about any potential spreading of African DNA overland across North Africa at that time, which is again possible but not known. The barrier of the Sahara would otherwise make any such ancient DNA distribution from south to north difficult but not impossible. New studies suggest that around Hannibal’s time there was likely more trans-Saharan travel via Garamantian oases [i.e., oases controlled by the Garamantes, a Berber people], so we shouldn’t deny any possible Africanization of the region of Carthage.

If Africanization was part of Hannibal’s heritage, I and other scholars would be most interested in seeing the evidence, as we should always be ready to learn and change our perceptions when needed. If our human ancestry derives originally from Africa, it was so long ago, possibly hundreds of thousands of years in the past, who can realistically say what that original DNA was like and what people looked like then? We still must have much more hard science conducted for years into the future to even come close to understanding that prehistory. I must add just as a personal note that my own father had some African ancestry because it appears in our DNA even if it may not show in external phenotypes. Sadly, “race” has too often been a divisive political term.

So once again, who knows? You could see the historian didn't know which term to use for 'black' and chose Africanization. So anyone who has definite proof Hannibal was black OR not black can become famous. Go for it.

The part in blue is the fucking truth. As information is presented, we should be willing to change. True learners do that. Others dig themselves deeper fucking holes(having to make Phoenicians black with no fucking proof for one).

crackers always say shit is unkown when they want to cover up black african history...

they want everything to be white from biblical character to jesus...

they even took Egypt out of africa and created some fictional shit called the middle east..

thats why you have to incorporate logic and basic common sense to see the truth in reality in some things..

but we all know how rare common sense and logic is now and days..

and anyone with just an ounce of common sense knows...

Hannibal was a black african aka moor/berber.

crackers have to reinvent history otherwise they wouldnt have

one...

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

Wow.

You're still trying?? I tapped out loooooong ago.

If you spend all of your time arguing with people who are nuts, you'll be exhausted and the nuts will still be nuts. -Scott Adams

I'm just sayin...

if you tapped out, why you jumped back in the ring..?

is all Im sayin...

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

wait till Denzel Washington plays Hannibal yall really

going to poop your pants...

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

its sure obvious who the cacs are on this site....

lol

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

SOURCE?!?!?!?! Just by saying he was a black African, you admit there were and are non-black Africans. PROVE which one he was. If you do, you will be famous.

well you do know african americans are the ancient berbers and hannibal was an ancient berber..

you do know this right??

 

[gene cisco]

crackers always say shit is unkown when they want to cover up black african history...

they want everything to be white from biblical character to jesus...

they even took Egypt out of africa and created some fictional shit called the middle east..

thats why you have to incorporate logic and basic common sense to see the truth in reality in some things..

but we all know how rare common sense and logic is now and days..

and anyone with just an ounce of common sense knows...

Hannibal was a black african aka moor/berber.

crackers have to reinvent history otherwise they wouldnt have

one...

They currently have no reason to cover up black African history. Some of them did it in the 19th century(when the life expectancy was as bad as the ancient world) and they were fascinated with pyramids, but I doubt they now would give a fuck with planes, cars, and other advancements. Would you? The relatively recent advancements in society that cacs can claim seem to be the reason why cats like you hype up the past and make nonsensical claims of 200 year lifespans and other shit.

The old Al Bundy 'high school' days shit when other folks have moved on. And the sad part is what you are trying to claim you have little proof to claim. We're West Africans claiming to be the Berbers/Arabs who invaded Europe and 'dropped knowledge'? We're the same group who didn't know about Jesus until cacs told us. Wasn't Ethiopians spreading that shit in our ancestor's lands.

Again, we should be proud of our history in Africa, not that of other groups. You can place the entire United States between our ancestors and shit you are trying to claim.

There is both whitewashing and blackwashing of Jesus. And once again, Jesus takes place in North Africa/West Asia. How fucking convenient that it doesn't take place deep in either continent, but folks on both sides always want to claim some sand cac. Which brings me back to Ethiopia. Since we have no DNA ties to them, why claim their culture and Christianity? Can you explain why West Africans who were taught Christianity by whites use Ethiopia as a fucking excuse to betray their own people and culture?

And once again, berbers are still right the fuck there. All the variations. Why don't African Americans who can trace history to slavery in the Americas have a DNA link to them? Explain that.

This is just a sad state. Claiming every fucking thing but our ancestors' culture. Making claims that the rest of the world laughs at(including populations in the African areas you try to claim).

This is just as bad as when Northern Europeans had a habit of claiming Rome and Greece, and the distance isn't even as great.

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

They currently have no reason to cover up black African history. Some of them did it in the 19th century(when the life expectancy was as bad as the ancient world) and they were fascinated with pyramids, but I doubt they now would give a fuck with planes, cars, and other advancements. Would you? The relatively recent advancements in society that cacs can claim seem to be the reason why cats like you hype up the past and make nonsensical claims of 200 year lifespans and other shit.

The old Al Bundy 'high school' days shit when other folks have moved on. And the sad part is what you are trying to claim you have little proof to claim. We're West Africans claiming to be the Berbers/Arabs who invaded Europe and 'dropped knowledge'? We're the same group who didn't know about Jesus until cacs told us. Wasn't Ethiopians spreading that shit in our ancestor's lands.

Again, we should be proud of our history in Africa, not that of other groups. You can place the entire United States between our ancestors and shit you are trying to claim.

There is both whitewashing and blackwashing of Jesus. And once again, Jesus takes place in North Africa/West Asia. How fucking convenient that it doesn't take place deep in either continent, but folks on both sides always want to claim some sand cac. Which brings me back to Ethiopia. Since we have no DNA ties to them, why claim their culture and Christianity? Can you explain why West Africans who were taught Christianity by whites use Ethiopia as a fucking excuse to betray their own people and culture?

And once again, berbers are still right the fuck there. All the variations. Why don't African Americans who can trace history to slavery in the Americas have a DNA link to them? Explain that.

This is just a sad state. Claiming every fucking thing but our ancestors' culture. Making claims that the rest of the world laughs at(including populations in the African areas you try to claim).

This is just as bad as when Northern Europeans had a habit of claiming Rome and Greece, and the distance isn't even as great.

Of course we should be proud of our history in Africa..

ancient carthage was in Africa...

no whats sad is cracker trying to white wash everything so they could

have a history..

they STILL sayin christobal colon aka christopher columbus discovered america..

they just fuckin lie, lie, lie and thats whats sad!!!

 

[exiledking]

Wow.

You're still trying?? I tapped out loooooong ago.

If you spend all of your time arguing with people who are nuts, you'll be exhausted and the nuts will still be nuts. -Scott Adams

I'm just sayin...

Lol I'm having fun. Im upping it for entertaiment of the board

 

[gene cisco]

Of course we should be proud of our history in Africa..

ancient carthage was in Africa...

no whats sad is cracker trying to white wash everything so they could

have a history..

they STILL sayin christobal colon aka christopher columbus discovered america..

they just fuckin lie, lie, lie and thats whats sad!!!

I know they lie, but some on our side lie too in a response to cac lies. We know Columbus didn't discover America. And any sensible person knows West Africans didn't 'civilize' the Europeans when it was West Asians who invaded Africa and then worked with Berbers. It was West Asians bringing 'civilization'(if those are the claims you wish to make) to Africa and Europe, so why the lies??!?!? Those West Asian scum hated black Africans, and folks trying to Fox news spin the shit.

Ancient Carthage was in Africa. Non-black Africans have been around since before Carthage. So how do we prove which type of African Hannibal was? Like I said, you'll be famous if you can prove his 'race' either way.

Lets be proud of our heritage. That's all I've ever argued. Ancient world isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway, so let's concentrate on what we as a people build in the future. We are constantly doubling down on the past while other groups move forward.

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

st: 17053188, member: 53729"]Lol I'm having fun. Im upping it for entertaiment of the board[/QUOTE]

he tapped out...

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

I know they lie, but some on our side lie too in a response to cac lies. We know Columbus didn't discover America. And any sensible person knows West Africans didn't 'civilize' the Europeans when it was West Asians who invaded Africa and then worked with Berbers. It was West Asians bringing 'civilization'(if those are the claims you wish to make) to Africa and Europe, so why the lies??!?!? Those West Asian scum hated black Africans, and folks trying to Fox news spin the shit.

Ancient Carthage was in Africa. Non-black Africans have been around since before Carthage. So how do we prove which type of African Hannibal was? Like I said, you'll be famous if you can prove his 'race' either way.

Lets be proud of our heritage. That's all I've ever argued. Ancient world isn't all it's cracked up to be anyway, so let's concentrate on what we as a people build in the future. We are constantly doubling down on the past while other groups move forward.

All of our antcestors deserve respect, and our problem is forgetting the past and not learning from it...

To not respect our antcestors and learn from thier mistakes is what will do us the most disservice...

 

[gene cisco]

All of our antcestors deserve respect, and our problem is forgetting the past and not learning from it...

To not respect our antcestors and learn from thier mistakes is what will do us the most disservice...

I agree with that. Here's the problem: Who were our ancestors? We got fucked over big time. Everything before DNA testing was guessing. We now have DNA testing. I mean, the slave traders did keep records and it all pointed to us being from mostly West Africa, but a lot of people just skipped over it because there wasn't anything cacs liked about West Africa. So why claim West Africa? No Christianity. No Great Pyramid. Claiming certain regions gives benefits because it counters the white cacs trying to claim Rome/Greece.

A lot of our scholars focused on Egypt, north Africa, and east Africa. They totally bypassed west Africa. A lot of lies were told to counter the lies of white supremacy. What I like to do is go through all the bullshit and find out what is what.

We have to learn from the mistakes of our ancestors. We also have to not pass them over for other people just because that's who cacs talk about.

 

[Joe Money]

The Atlantic Slave Trade in Two Minutes
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/..._the_history_of_the_atlantic_slave_trade.html

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

I agree with that. Here's the problem: Who were our ancestors? We got fucked over big time. Everything before DNA testing was guessing. We now have DNA testing. I mean, the slave traders did keep records and it all pointed to us being from mostly West Africa, but a lot of people just skipped over it because there wasn't anything cacs liked about West Africa. So why claim West Africa? No Christianity. No Great Pyramid. Claiming certain regions gives benefits because it counters the white cacs trying to claim Rome/Greece.

A lot of our scholars focused on Egypt, north Africa, and east Africa. They totally bypassed west Africa. A lot of lies were told to counter the lies of white supremacy. What I like to do is go through all the bullshit and find out what is what.

We have to learn from the mistakes of our ancestors. We also have to not pass them over for other people just because that's who cacs talk about.

Correct but when they do try to disassociate one from our gene pool like Hanibal

or compelety forget about them like the Candace of Meroe we should never let that happen...


like I was saying wait till the Hannibal movie with Denzel Washington comes out...

there will be tears...

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

The Atlantic Slave Trade in Two Minutes
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/..._the_history_of_the_atlantic_slave_trade.html

speaking of the atlantic slave trade...



What do you think of this post I got this from the coli but I seen it posted before...?

Where did most Black Americans come from?

All serious scientists agree that the TOTAL number of African slaves imported into the United States was approximately 500,000.

Some estimate that an additional 38,000 to 50,000 Slaves were smuggled into the United States from the Caribbean after the Slave trade was outlawed in 1808.

So, assuming that all blacks in the United States were from Africa, by 1865 (when slavery was outlawed) the maximum number of African slaves imported to the United States was 550,000. In statistical analysis there is a mathematical formula for calculating the time needed for a population to DOUBLE – it is called Doubling time!

>>>>Doubling time: (Wiki) Doubling time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The doubling time is the period of time required for a quantity to double in size or value. It is applied to population growth, inflation and many other things which tend to grow over time. When the relative growth rate (not the absolute growth rate) is constant, the quantity undergoes exponential growth and has a constant doubling time or period which can be calculated directly from the growth rate. This time can be calculated by dividing the natural logarithm of 2 by the exponent of growth, or approximated by dividing 70 by the percentage growth rate (more roughly but roundly, dividing 72; see the rule of 72 for details and a derivation of this formula). The doubling time is a characteristic unit (a natural unit of scale) for the exponential growth equation, and its converse for exponential decay is the half-life.

For example, given Canada's net population growth of 0.9% in the year 2006, dividing 70 by 0.9 gives an approximate doubling time of 78 years. Thus if the growth rate remains constant, Canada's population would double from its 2006 figure of 33 million to 66 million by 2084.

NATURALLY CANADA'S POPULATION IS AMONG THE WORLDS HEALTHIEST, AND IN NO WAY COULD BE COMPARED TO UNDERFED OVERWORKED SLAVES OF LONG AGO. BUT THE CANADIAN NUMBERS WILL BE USED TO MAKE THE STRONGEST POINT.

In 1808 the importation of Slaves from Africa was outlawed. At that time there were about 1,377,808 Blacks (1810 numbers, actual number was a little less) in the United States. Using the Canadian doubling time of 78 years, by 1886 the BEST the Black population of the United States COULD have been was: 2,755,616. So that by the time of the 1900 census, the MOST the Black population of the United States could have been would be about 2,810,000.

THE ACTUAL BLACK POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1900 WAS 8,840,789
(Of course using the actual slave number of 550,000 produces even greater disparity in population numbers).






WHERE DID THE OTHER 6,030,789 BLACK AMERICANS, NOT FROM AFRICA, COME FROM?

 

[CharlieBrown]

Lol I'm having fun. Im upping it for entertaiment of the board

You Sir, are a modern Don Quixote..

Tilting at windmills.

But you will find the puny lance of Reason and Evidence useless against the impenetrable armor of Ignorance and Wishful Thinking...

"...you may as well go about to turn the sun to ice with fanning in his face with a peacock's feather."

Shakespeare

Good luck...

 

[gene cisco]

Correct but when they do try to disassociate one from our gene pool like Hanibal

or compelety forget about them like the Candace of Meroe we should never let that happen...


like I was saying wait till the Hannibal movie with Denzel Washington comes out...

there will be tears...

But our gene pool can be proven now in some cases. Why do we willingly not embrace it? Why do we run around cherrypicking things in Africa? You know who thinks all Africans are the same? Cacs. Every other group gets separation. We are trying to do potluck with all African cultures just because of white supremacy. It's not honest history.

There is no current evidence of Hannibal being from our gene pool. There is no current evidence that we are closely related to North Africans or Ethiopians. If you can point me to the genetic evidence, believe me I will look at it. Shit, the world will look at it and analyze it.

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

You Sir, are a modern Don Quixote..

Tilting at windmills.

But you will find the puny lance of Reason and Evidence useless against the impenetrable armor of Ignorance and Wishful Thinking...

"...you may as well go about to turn the sun to ice with fanning in his face with a peacock's feather."

Shakespeare

Good luck...

 

[Joe Money]

speaking of the atlantic slave trade...



What do you think of this post I got this from the coli but I seen it posted before...?

Where did most Black Americans come from?

All serious scientists agree that the TOTAL number of African slaves imported into the United States was approximately 500,000.

Some estimate that an additional 38,000 to 50,000 Slaves were smuggled into the United States from the Caribbean after the Slave trade was outlawed in 1808.

So, assuming that all blacks in the United States were from Africa, by 1865 (when slavery was outlawed) the maximum number of African slaves imported to the United States was 550,000. In statistical analysis there is a mathematical formula for calculating the time needed for a population to DOUBLE – it is called Doubling time!

>>>>Doubling time: (Wiki) Doubling time - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The doubling time is the period of time required for a quantity to double in size or value. It is applied to population growth, inflation and many other things which tend to grow over time. When the relative growth rate (not the absolute growth rate) is constant, the quantity undergoes exponential growth and has a constant doubling time or period which can be calculated directly from the growth rate. This time can be calculated by dividing the natural logarithm of 2 by the exponent of growth, or approximated by dividing 70 by the percentage growth rate (more roughly but roundly, dividing 72; see the rule of 72 for details and a derivation of this formula). The doubling time is a characteristic unit (a natural unit of scale) for the exponential growth equation, and its converse for exponential decay is the half-life.

For example, given Canada's net population growth of 0.9% in the year 2006, dividing 70 by 0.9 gives an approximate doubling time of 78 years. Thus if the growth rate remains constant, Canada's population would double from its 2006 figure of 33 million to 66 million by 2084.

NATURALLY CANADA'S POPULATION IS AMONG THE WORLDS HEALTHIEST, AND IN NO WAY COULD BE COMPARED TO UNDERFED OVERWORKED SLAVES OF LONG AGO. BUT THE CANADIAN NUMBERS WILL BE USED TO MAKE THE STRONGEST POINT.

In 1808 the importation of Slaves from Africa was outlawed. At that time there were about 1,377,808 Blacks (1810 numbers, actual number was a little less) in the United States. Using the Canadian doubling time of 78 years, by 1886 the BEST the Black population of the United States COULD have been was: 2,755,616. So that by the time of the 1900 census, the MOST the Black population of the United States could have been would be about 2,810,000.

THE ACTUAL BLACK POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1900 WAS 8,840,789
(Of course using the actual slave number of 550,000 produces even greater disparity in population numbers).






WHERE DID THE OTHER 6,030,789 BLACK AMERICANS, NOT FROM AFRICA, COME FROM?

The mistake here is using the Canadian population growth rate of 0.9% and ASSUMING that African slaves of the 1800s had a similar growth rate. Studies show (OMG it's a legitimate source!) that the average growth rate was more like 2.5%, which means the "doubling time" was approximately every 28 years. And if you look at the charts you posted you will see that this doubling time was roughly accurate.

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

But our gene pool can be proven now in some cases. Why do we willingly not embrace it? Why do we run around cherrypicking things in Africa? You know who thinks all Africans are the same? Cacs. Every other group gets separation. We are trying to do potluck with all African cultures just because of white supremacy. It's not honest history.

There is no current evidence of Hannibal being from our gene pool. There is no current evidence that we are closely related to North Africans or Ethiopians. If you can point me to the genetic evidence, believe me I will look at it. Shit, the world will look at it and analyze it.

... so called african americans are the ancient berbers the parasitic elite cacs have always known this...

So you are saying at no time in american history the so called african american aka the so called negro was never called or considered an ancient berber??

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

The mistake here is using the Canadian population growth rate of 0.9% and ASSUMING that African slaves of the 1800s had a similar growth rate. Studies show (OMG it's a legitimate source!) that the average growth rate was more like 2.5%, which means the "doubling time" was approximately every 28 years. And if you look at the charts you posted you will see that this doubling time was roughly accurate.

You might have overlooked this part..

NATURALLY CANADA'S POPULATION IS AMONG THE WORLDS HEALTHIEST, AND IN NO WAY COULD BE COMPARED TO UNDERFED OVERWORKED SLAVES OF LONG AGO. BUT THE CANADIAN NUMBERS WILL BE USED TO MAKE THE STRONGEST POINT.

 

[exiledking]

... so called african americans are the ancient berbers the parasitic elite cacs have always known this...

So you are saying at no time in american history the so called african american aka the so called negro was never called or considered an ancient berber??

Nope. Not at all.

Some were called yoruba at some point, Hausa, Fulani in some case, soninké, mandinka, Ashanti, Angolan, igbo, Bini, etc... All those people you skip over in your quest to be from somewhere and a part of something you ain't.

And these people existed in these areas at the same as the Berbers stupid.

Mansa Musa would gone through the land of the Berberson his pilgrimage. He may have bought a berber concubine or two, so if he fucked em and had kids, there's a few in your mix.

The MOORS came through west Africa and spread Islam, but not nearly as much of the civilization they so called gave to the Mediterranean europeans. Strange that they spread this civilization there and not as much in West Africa. Also strange that the AFROASIATIC language aren't as closely related to the Niger congo languages The closest you get are the Chadic languages like Hausa. But you won't claim Hausa , cuz no white people told you to.

 

[Mrfreddygoodbud]

Nope. Not at all.

Some were called yoruba at some point, Hausa, Fulani in some case, soninké, mandinka, Ashanti, Angolan, igbo, Bini, etc... All those people you skip over in your quest to be from somewhere and a part of something you ain't.

And these people existed in these areas at the same as the Berbers stupid.

Mansa Musa would gone through the land of the Berberson his pilgrimage. He may have bought a berber concubine or two, so if he fucked em and had kids, there's a few in your mix.

The MOORS came through west Africa and spread Islam, but not nearly as much of the civilization they so called gave to the Mediterranean europeans. Strange that they spread this civilization there and not as much in West Africa. Also strange that the AFROASIATIC language aren't as closely related to the Niger congo languages The closest you get are the Chadic languages like Hausa. But you won't claim Hausa , cuz no white people told you to.

not true,

crackers in power knew who we were.. they knew back in slavery days and they know now...

 

[exiledking]

The mistake here is using the Canadian population growth rate of 0.9% and ASSUMING that African slaves of the 1800s had a similar growth rate. Studies show (OMG it's a legitimate source!) that the average growth rate was more like 2.5%, which means the "doubling time" was approximately every 28 years. And if you look at the charts you posted you will see that this doubling time was roughly accurate.

And notice he starts from some bogus number that he's made up from his own mind once again and doesn't give one shit about the reference you linked that would show him he's wrong about even the initial njmbers. Plus he's counting from 1865 emancipation instead of the year the slave trade was outlawed which actually might have helped his weak ass setup lol. This fucking guy just keeps embarrassing himself.