Paul Hate.;3673929 said:
^Yes I can.
Cuz that slave was stripped of his identity,family,history,culture,language and was interbred with other races of people,indoctrinated with euro,christian beleif and through his offspring eventually integrated and intermixed somemore.
So even when that first african slave in my bloodline stepped foot in the plantation he was no longer african.They raped his women and kids,took his name,religion and everything.The very first footstep in the americas he was no longer african.
The slave trade itself disconnected him from africa.
I'm sure most of the first Africans brought to the West still identified as Yoruba, Wolof, Akan, Kongo etc. whether they were 'allowed' to or not. In Latin America, I know the Yoruba religion was often practiced secretly which is why the orisons are disguised as Catholic saints (or something like that). In the U.S, you have the African Methodist Episcopal church which was founded in the 18th century (by free Blacks?). Anyways, the development of Black American culture, West Indian cultures, Latino culture etc. was a gradual process that probably spanned generations. You were born in the U.S to Dominican and Cuban parents (?), despite the pro-melting pot/anti-cultural mosaic attitude of many Americans, do you not identify with your ethnic heritage?
Bold - you can't 'strip' someone of their family or history, you can only divide families and discourage someone from acknowledging or passing on knowledge of their history. The first African slaves brought to the West had geneological ties to the ethnic groups they left behind whether they were allowed to practice their culture or not.
It still makes no difference as far as my argument is concerned since Africans never sold Black Americans/West Indians/Latinos into slavery regardless of whether or not the slaves 'stopped being African' the minute they set foot on American soil.
By the way, culture and ethnicity aren't actually the same thing. An Italian raised in China by adopted Chinese parents might have little in common, culturally, with his biological parents, aunts/uncles, siblings, cousins, grandparents etc. who live in Italy but he still has geneological ties to Italian culture even if he himself is culturally Chinese. I wouldn't argue that Western Blacks are African (I wouldn't argue against this either) but the fact that most of them (including most West Indians?) have some European ancestry is irrelevant, it would only mean that they have ties to European cultures as well as African ones. It's not an either or situation, which is why I never understood people who argue that mixed ('mulatto') people are neither Black or White as opposed to both Black and White (at least ethnically if not racially, since mixed people usually resemble light skinned Black people and race is based on phenotype whereas ethnicity is based on geneaology).