Were there really black people living inside the borders of the Roman Empire?

Except I said yes to OP's question.

But for reference, Angola is not on the Mediterranean.

Yes.

Not really. They would've been contained to the southern outskirts of Egypt. They would have probably composed like 1% of the Empires population.

That doesn't mean anything. The "Atlantic slave trade" was from Africa, all of Africa, to the Americas. You really thought "Altantic slave trade" meant specifically "slaves from the coast of the Atlantic"? The dutch, who were primary purveyors of the Atlantic slave trade, had major colonies in South Africa, which would later be seized by the British in the 19th century Boer Wars. Portugese had trading colonies along the East Africa Coast and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of black people died in the early Brazilian colony period, in sugar and banana plantations and mines.

negligible. Afro-Americans have distinctly west African features and any east Africans have long since been absorbed into their genepool. This is something you can plainly see with your eyes and using common sense, I'm not going to dig up DNA information for you because I didn't even make the claim in the first place.

Now prove the slavers went out of their way to steal people from the Ottoman-controlled Egypt or the territories in the Maghreb that Rome once controlled, instead of defenseless tribes closer to their intended American markets.

British colonies on continental North America accounted for around 5% of the total Atlantic Slave trade. Most of it west to Caribbean Islands and the Spanish Main. Now you're just citing irrelevant demographics.

Sub-saharan Africa was not Ottoman controlled. Africa is a big place. You guys need to pick up books once in awhile.

Fucking nutso.

Yes, there was at least one black person living in the Roman Empire during its ~1500 year existence

But you NEED to cite DNA evidence when you're going to claim origins of these people like you're some professor. "Well, it looks like a west african, smells like a west african", doesn't cut it, user. You sound prejudice and ignorant in the first place, and what you think is a west african 400 years ago is quite likely from your own bias rather than fact.

Exactly. What do the people of Haiti look like? What do the people of Jamaica look like? What do the people of Barbados or ethnic black parts of Brazil look like?

1 in 100 being black is quite high

Africa is the most genetically diverse continent in the world and some East Africans literally have different skulls than West Africans. You can easily tell them apart and as such anecdotal evidence is all you're going to get from me. Not to mention what you're claiming so completely defies common sense that it doesn't deserve somebody writing a referenced essay for you disproving it. There would have been Arabs, North Africans, Ethiopians, and Sudanese in the Empire but there is no reason to believe by any reasonable stretch within the realm of common sense that there was a significant West African population if there was one at all.

Not him but keep being an anal butt wipe. Its common and true knowledge that the majority of slaves were from west africa

And the DNA couldn't possibly be more clear:
>the maternal lineages of African Americans are most similar to haplogroups that are today especially common in West Africa (>55%), followed closely by West-Central Africa and Southwestern Africa (

The conversation deviated when that person was depicting the Atlantic slave trade later. You didn't follow the conversation.

It's not common knowledge. What is common knowledge is that a number of ports which marketed black slaves were in west africa. From where they came before they got to that point is another matter entirely, and quite honestly, if anything, if the west Africans themselves were marketing the people, most would not have been the West Africans themselves, but the interior. This is also totally, conveniently, skipping the fact Dutch and Portugese had trading ports all over south and east Africa.

It is common knowledge. They'll either know absolutely nothing other than "From Africa", but they are the same sort of people who think Hitler is still alive, or if they know something they will say "From west Africa"

see now stop being such a chode

/thread

african Americans would have descended, primarily, from 5% of the Atlantic slave trade, and past that, not that slavery is a great way to live, but continental north american slaves had it far better than the Caribbean and South American counterparts. Working on banana and sugar plantations and in mines was particularly dangerous business and many, many died. Many times, entire populations of central and south American slaves needed to be replenished for all the loss to disease, poisonous insects, accidents and other horrors.

You just don't know or understand, and base your whole knowledge on USA slavery. It's a very small part of the bigger picture.

>This is also totally, conveniently, skipping the fact Dutch and Portugese had trading ports all over south and east Africa.
But there exist records showing that most slaves 80%ish) were shipped from the ports in central and west Africa. Slaves were marched long distances, but to think they were actually marched all the way across the continent in significant numbers is a stretch, and not supported by DNA evidence.

My question is, why does this matter to you so much?

I'm not being a chode. It's just wrong to think you have some cross-section demographic of african slave trade descendancy in the Americas from samples from african americans (USA). It's a very small percentage of the greater practice, in the order of 5%.

I don't even know why this is being discussed or why you care about it so damn much, but care to share any sources about slave demographics in other countries, then? It just really does not make any sense relying on East Africa for the bulk of slaves pre-Suez Canal. This was a business and it's more profitable to get the product from A to Z as fast as possible .

They didn't just hike there, they'd trade on ships from east africa to south africa, trade on ships south africa to west africa, south africa to brazil, it was all over. It wasn't just "west africa" to the USA. That's asinine. It matters to me because those were alot of people and their story deserves some relative representation. You'll never see records of a great percentage of it.

Think about it. I know what I'm saying is true, that continental North America was roughly 5% of the slave trade. What about the other 95%? Where did they go? What of their suffering and deaths? What of their families? And before you start on white privilege, there were tens of thousands of free black people living in all these places, who also had slaves, sold slaves, sued people over lost slaves. People are just chronically misrepresenting the whole issue from a position of ignorance. I'll stop now, I got it out of my system that the statements I refuted were wrong. If you want to live in ignorance, I can't help that.

blogs.ancestry.com/techroots/ancestrydna-makes-scientific-breakthrough-in-west-african-ethnicity/

Providing more detailed ethnicity estimates for West African populations is crucial for American family historians. Approximately 85-90% of today’s African Americans are descendants of enslaved Africans brought to America between 150 and 450 years ago – leaving many African Americans without a known family history prior to this time. AncestryDNA’s new West African ethnicity update will help to link African American individuals to specific locations in West Africa. In the future, more detailed analyses of genetic data and family trees have the potential to reveal important historical stories.

kys

Look at this map. Look at it. Where did slaves come from?

That proves nothing to the conversation and you don't understand why because you're not bright.

>I don'tthink we should rely on evidence, but rather on my flawed assumptions

"West central Africa" is not "West Africa". Holy fuck.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Africa

This map alone would seem to legitimize my point. Fuck, I said I was done. I'm really done.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Jamaican#Atlantic_slave_trade

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Slave_market_regions_and_participation

Lovejoy, Paul E. Transformations in Slavery. Cambridge University Press, 2000, if you're going to claim wikipedia is unreliable.

>ad hominem's you
Why do you think they DNA-mapped West Africa in particular you dense retard.

Absolutely. They were in control of or had contact with mediterranean/african areas.

Is congo really considered west african? always looked like it's own thing to me.

I "think" what he's saying is that you're citing, "Approximately 85-90% of today’s African Americans are descendants of enslaved Africans brought to America between 150 and 450 years ago" which, to his, as yet unsourced reckoning was only 5% of the "greater Atlantic slave trade". So you're talking about 85% of the people with ancestry of the 5%, so you didn't have a point. I tend to agree, but I'd like to know where the "5%" came from. This map does seem to indicate, though, a very small percentage actually hit the NA continent.

Of course.

You're right. If I had made the initial argument, I would have said "most slaves were west and central Africans", which if you look back up at, I kind of did, but that's one of the pitfalls of anonymous image boards.

It doesn't matter though, because you're a crazy person and would think even that assertion is problematic.

Well, look at this and guess:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Aethiopians#Classical_origins

>Sub-saharan Africa was not Ottoman controlled.

It wasn't roman controlled either.

>if the west Africans themselves were marketing the people, most would not have been the West Africans themselves, but the interior

I know this was posted a while ago and has been awnsered, but I have to talk. How stupid can a person be to consider that West Africa has no interior? Even worst: Howstupid can be a person to believe that all west africa contained a single people or whatever else that prevented west africans from enslaving different west africans? It's just astounding. Is the level so low here or I should just blame politics and ideology?

What are modern day Chad, Congo, C.A.R, for the lose, obtuse twit.

All west african according to Anyway, the bambara states were undeniably in west africa and they captured people from west africa. That alone destroys your fantasy were west africans can't enslave west africans. Read on african history before talking, there's plenty to read and you can even find a pretty nice introduction in the website of the UNESCO.

South Africa never had a major slave trade to America due to the inconvenience of travel.
Colonisers=/=slave traders with necessity.
A lot of slave traders weren't colonisers, a lot of colonisers weren't slave traders.
South Africa had a slave trade with India on the other hand.

The main proportion of slaves from Africa were taken from the Western part of Africa due to the shorter travel to America.

Stop saying stupid shit.

once watched a documentary about slave forts, as in those fortified places they stored slaves in before shipping, and some local guy was giving a tour and talking about how his family comes from a long line of local slavers and slave traders, equivalent to small nobility, and how its a historical burden many people there share etc, etc...

anyone know any sources on this topic?

I think I've watched exactly the same documentary.

thank you

North east africans. Ergo only berbers, sudanese and ethiopians.

There were no west africans at all which means that all nigger casting using american POCs is miscasting (99% of american niggers are from west africa). Like using Persians for portrayal of Chinese

Daily reminder Jews controlled much of the slave trade by converting to Christianity.

How?

A myriad group of white actors play Romans

Nobody cares if an AA plays a Sudanese

Sudanese are literally Arabs. It would be rather weird if an African America played them.

There's more genetic diversity in Africa's human populations than the rest of the world, because the rest of the world was supposed to have been settled by a relatively small group of emigrants. So East Africans and West Africans are pretty different. Culturally too, in some ways, because they would have had contact with Egyptians that West Africans didn't have.

>Sudanese are literally Arabs

And?

Have you seen a Sudanese person before?

Indistinguishable from Tyrone

Arab is a culture, not a race

Unless you're saying pale blond Lebanese people aren't Arab too

But who cares?

East Europeans are different from west Europeans genetically but nobody would whine about a Russian playing an Irish monk

Acting

>Using South Sudan
kek

>nobody would whine about a Russian playing an Irish monk
Debatable.

>The Arab presence is estimated at 70% of the Sudanese population.[14] Others include the Arabized ethnic groups of Nubians, Zaghawa, and Copts.[125][126]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan#Ethnic_groups

Even Ahmed looks a good Half African/Half Arab

You're telling me that kid isn't black?

Get real

Arab =\= Brown, black, or white

>The Arab presence is estimated at 70% of the Sudanese population.
Yeah, and the "Arabs" look like

Which is the point. I use literally with exaggeration because that's what the majority of the Sudanese population look like, which is vastly different than a African American.

He could pass for South Asian.

The argument is whether Sudanese are Arabs or not. And they are.

I know some Arabs from the Maghreb that look like him.

But this is during the Roman empire, wasn't the Arab expansion part of the expansion of Islam?

2/3rd of the empire was in north africa so yeah probally

they all look like negroes (when they havent obviously become heavily mixed with european or native populations that is) with the characteristic shallow nose arch between the eyes rather than the caucasoid nose arch which east africans often have in common with european and middle eastern people.

new world slaves were pretty obviously predominantly non-east african since their descendents look so clearly non-east african and in most of those countries there has not been substantial influx of east africans since slave trade days.

Really this should not be controversial and should be treated as the null hypothesis which if you want to discredit then you should provide some compelling evidence against it.

African Americans are on average 18% white

What's your point?

They all look the same

that article is using arab to mean 'traditionally arab speaking', is taking arab to mean "descended from the semitic tribes that came out from arabia in islamic conquests".

Clearly someone cant take time to google shit but here we go. Greeks and Romans referred to the people of Eastern Africa as Aetheopians (Wow wonder how they got that) and even popular myths such as Perseus mentions kingdoms to the south of Egypt. Their is plenty of records indicating from both Greeks and Romans of a dark skinned people past Egypt. In fact Nero at one point had a plan to invade Aetheopia and he failed because of maybe I don't know the huge fucking desert separating them. Also have you ever wondered why such religions as Christianity and Judaism exist in Ethipoia today? Man it's almost as if they traded with and had contact directly/indirectly or otherwise with the Mediterranean?

if the greeks had enough contact with them to be able to make such hilariously accurate caricatures then i'm sure the romans did as well.

...

>Were there really black people living inside the borders of the Roman Empire?

Sure, aren't Nubians black?

Were there any East Asians or South Asians living inside the borders of the Roman Empire?

And European Americans are on average 10% black.

What's your point?

Yes. There even were some paintings showing girls getting blacked and I'm not kidding.

I remember some text about a wife having 2 kids who were clearly the family's slaves' (black and some other darker than Roman). Which is really sad since Romans did have fucking silphium.

...

>procopius is black
what is this shitty meme

>guy fucks a guy fucking a woman

wew lads was Rome a giant porn set?

i don't think any of those images are supposed to represent black people.

>this is what /pol/tards actually believe

>the dark skinned one with the enormous dong isn't supposed to be black
lel

>I have to lie to counter his point
Just stop user

>Arab is a culture, not a race
Don't tell /int/ that.

Yes. But outside of Africa, and in some parts of North Africa itself, it would have been exotic.
Bad example.

Yeah, but back then caste was more important than skin color.

>Arab is a culture, not a race

'Race' has been used to denote ethnicity, cultures, even genders in the past.

that's Priapus

you a cuck or a compensating nog?

in the ancient world they obviously weren't restricted by political correctness when depicting blacks, and when they do depict them they tend to have pretty distinctly negroid facial features.

well, I guess that's /thread

I feel as though something isn't quite right about this image and the information stated in it.

Saying black people when referring to the pre-modern world is like referring to both Japs and Turks as "Asians"