Can someone explain this?

[Dr. Acula]

If deaths were involved it would be less especially over months in the oceans. The only answer that makes sense is black folks were already here before settlements.

But then you also have to account for immigration of blacks to the US, the fact that maybe in 1850 a family may have easily have 7 or 8 children where as in 1950 maybe 3, and that the rate of importation of slaves probably wasn't constant and changed from year to year. Also like already mentioned probably plenty of slaves brought over and not recorded as slave importation still occurred when it was officially illegal so a lot of slaves probably don't have records from shipping.

Point is, there are too many variables to consider but when using a rough estimate, the rate found is not absurd to say the least and in fact, incredibly normal.

 

[thekingsmen]

The number difference comes from the fact that quickly slavery in the US turned into a breeding factory instead of relying on shipments coming from Africa. Possibly because of longer distances (look how closer Brazil is from Africa), possibly because trade was dominated for a long time by the portuguese and spanish iirc, possibly because whites in america quickly understood that having slaves born in slavery directly was more efficient.

Edit : also these are official records. As in every "business", there was probably lots of stuff happening "off the books".

If that was the case there would less slaves to bring over since it was cheaper to breed than to sail.

 

[thekingsmen]

But then you also have to account for immigration of blacks to the US, the fact that maybe in 1850 a family may have easily have 7 or 8 children where as in 1950 maybe 3, and that the rate of importation of slaves probably wasn't constant and changed from year to year. Also like already mentioned probably plenty of slaves brought over and not recorded as slave importation still occurred when it was officially illegal so a lot of slaves probably don't have records from shipping.

Point is, there are too many variables to consider but when using a rough estimate, the rate found is not absurd to say the least and in fact, incredibly normal.

My g explorers already mentioned blacks folks here(non slaves) in their journals from 1500s to 1800s.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

Millions of black folks were in the US by 1800s but it claims less. So that means they weren't from Africa.

It doesn't claim that at all. It claims hundreds of thousands were shipped there over 300 years. Nothing about how many were there.

The conclusion you draw is fallacious given the fact that, well, reproduction.

 

[thekingsmen]

It doesn't claim that at all. It claims hundreds of thousands were shipped there over 300 years. Nothing about how many were there.

The conclusion you draw is fallacious given the fact that, well, reproduction.

Why would you need to sail if you can reproduce more at a faster rate?

There is documents of blacks already here.

 

[Ghost Utmost]

I'm not overthinking it, I'm answering your question. Also that equation isn't perfect by any means and doesn't account of deaths or changing rates per year. Just an estimate. It shows that given what you're asking the amount of black people in the United States is about where it should be not accounting for abnormal circumstances.

You must be doing something wrong if you are showing 1000 per year for 300 years. Its exponential not linear.

He literally does not understand

 

[mbewane]

If that was the case there would less slaves to bring over since it was cheaper to breed than to sail.

Bring some, breed some. Keep a steady supply coming in to make sure you always have enough and/or offset whatever "losses" (deaths, killings, miscarriages, slaves escaping etc) may happen to your own slaves. It ain't rocket science.

 

[MischievousMonkey]

Why would you need to sail if you can reproduce more at a faster rate?

There is documents of blacks already here.

The people who sail and the people who make slaves reproduce are not the same. They don't have the same needs, but your question conflates them.

The people who sail sell slaves. The people who makes them reproduce don't. Not only some people might not have slaves yet, so they form a demand. There are also slave owners who have specific needs for specific slaves at a specific time, so they make part of the demand for new slaves immediately ready to work. Reproduction takes time while new arrivals of slaves offer greater flexibility.

 

[13473]

i'm confused at the question. i dont think they're including the caribbean in "north america"
i'm guessing they're saying the 388k were brought directly to america nonstop, while the rest of slaves were purchased from the caribbean ports.

 

[Nicole0416_718_929_646212]

I’m not understanding your question??

 

[Nicole0416_718_929_646212]

@HarlemHottie @xoxodede @Booksnrain @Wild self

 

[thekingsmen]

Bring some, breed some. Keep a steady supply coming in to make sure you always have enough and/or offset whatever "losses" (deaths, killings, miscarriages, slaves escaping etc) may happen to your own slaves. It ain't rocket science.

I agree but it's costly to hire sailors, keep boats afloat, captains, food, supplies etc.

 

[13473]

i'm 90% sure there were not millions of blacks in usa in 1800, i think you're reading that incorrectly.

12+ million africans taken in total.
10.7 million survived journey
most of those went directly to south america or caribbean
388k went directly to usa
some usa slaves (about 25%) also purchased from caribbean.

so .5 milillion taken to usa and bred to a population of like 3 million by mid 1800s.

 

[Secure Da Bag]

They came directly from Africa. Then from the Caribbean and South America. They had children. Between rape and no form of birth control, probably those African women had 3 to 5 children a piece.

Africans circumnavigated the world. There's a good chance they were here before the Europeans. But provide some evidence that a 1M were already here though.

Either way, regardless of how or when those Africans got here, they were still oppressed and stripped of fundamental freedoms.

 

[mbewane]

I agree but it's costly to hire sailors, keep boats afloat, captains, food, supplies etc.

First off, as breh said this is also why you needed fresh supply vs waiting for reproduction to do its thing :

The people who sail and the people who make slaves reproduce are not the same. They don't have the same needs, but your question conflates them.

The people who sail sell slaves. The people who makes them reproduce don't. Not only some people might not have slaves yet, so they form a demand. There are also slave owners who have specific needs for specific slaves at a specific time, so they make part of the demand for new slaves immediately ready to work. Reproduction takes time while new arrivals of slaves offer greater flexibility.

Second you do realize that it wasn't slaveowners who were hiring sailors, keeping boats afloat, etc? Thet were "just" customers. You aren't the one organizing the trip of your phone from China, they weren't organizing the deportation of Africa, just buying the product. Slavery was not one-off individuals who went back and forth between the Americas and Africa when random plantation owner needed two more slaves lol, it was huge companies backed by powerful empires (Spain, France, Portugal, Netherlands, etc) like the Dutch West India Company. Basically with this huge backing the average cost of deporting an African wouldn't be that high because you're literrally shipping millions and thinking long-term.