Why is this historically prominent group of people always left out of historical definitions. Black Americans are defined as the descendants of enslaved Africans in america, but that definition is highly reductive in that it ignores their Free POC ancestry and whatever other ancestry they might have.

What's the cause for this linguistic misrepresentation of the black American ethnic group?

>>17849464 (OP)
Because they were Africans or French.

>>17849464 (OP)
>Black Americans are defined as the descendants of enslaved Africans in america
No it also includes people fresh off the boat from Nigeria or whatever

>>17849464 (OP)
>Free POC
Accounted for what, 0.03% of the blacks in the americas? It's almost pointless to even mention them, and untruthful to claim descent from them.

>>17849510
A little under half a million or roughly 10% of the black population on the eve of the Civil war, you dumb nigger.

>>17849530
>10%
That's some high octane bullshit. Run away slaves arent "free", they're stolen property.

>>17849499
No. People from Africa are called "African-American".

>>17849544
He's right, there's no such thing as a "black american" you're either american or you're not. As a general guide all vaguely kinky haired brown people ill be considered black in the US, there's actually no real representation for "slave descendants". Actually the fact that all blacks are lumped together in the US ends up confusing them because within a generation black immigrants think they're too slaves

>>17849548
>they're too slaves
Wait...America still has slaves? I know africa does, but I thought the USA got rid of slavery.

>>17849553
apparently, because fresh new illegals can easily be convinced white men in the US enslaved them

>>17849548
There is a concept of Black Americans derived from the antebellum south as a unique ethnic group even if some people try to deny their existence.

>>17849554
Correct. Non whites are all a bunch of lying, griftting scammers who will gladly pretend they're owed free shit from white people. In reality they all deserve nothing and should be grateful their ill favored kind is allowed to exist.

>>17849548
>you're either white or you're not American.
better now.

>>17849558
Blacks in the US aren't actually eligible for citizenship. They're essentially an untouchable race, they were brought here with the sole purpose of farming tobacco for the british, essentially cattle. When the US was formed this slavery was codified in the constitution since the people that founded the US would make a white nationalist blush, they didn't recognize the rights of blacks as even being a possibility. "Free" blacks were hated north and south. I have no doubt they would have trouble finding employment in anything but menial labor usually relegated to the poorest class or mass illegal immigrants like the irish.

Most of them stayed on plantations which is a common theme with blacks

>>17849571
>Blacks in the US aren't actually eligible for citizenship

Black Americans predate the US and thus US citizenship. So that doesn't really matter. As an ethnic group they formed as an amalgamation in the americas prior to the founding of the US or modern nation-states in general.

>>17849553
>Wait...America still has slaves?
Yes. The Civil War only made private ownership of slave illegal, but communities could still maintain slave stocks and buy, sell and rent out the recently enslaved or re-enslaved. The trade was ended when it became too embarrassing internationally, but slavery is still legal and practiced. All over the US, Concentration Camp exist that have been specifically erected to serve the labour needs of maintaining public land.

>>17849580
I'm just saying in this specific instance why history wouldn't actually look at "free" blacks as being "free". Of course on nicer plantations you couldn't really ask for a better life, especially not then as a black. Living in a near-industrial agricultural powerhouse with your family, your own wooden house, your own gardens, chickens. And all you had to do was hoe the weeds around masta's tobacco

>>17849588
>why history wouldn't actually look at "free" blacks as being "free"

Who's opinion are you using as your frame of reference when you refer to "history" here? Free people of color were objectively real.

>>17849594
Well we literally had to illegally pass an amendment to recognize blacks as even human after the civil war

>>17849597
>we
Who's we??

Humanity is bestowed upon a person by God, not a government.

The recognition you are talking about recognized the formerly enslaved as full fledged free citizens. Not all black americans were enslaved.

>>17849602
I'd argue locke fucked up by technically creating universal human rights

>>17849597
Even after that, niggers could not gain legal citizenship. Kayne isn't actually mad when he Heils Hitler, because Hitler calling out the hypocrisies the US government engaged in on the daily did more for the Negro than the guy who shot MLK.

>>17849614
The only thing that has changed is the number of people that have to die for a black man to own a gun or live in a nice neighborhood or not get shot to death by police. But he has to live in that neighborhood with 12 people crammed into the house with him, because no bank will lend him money to buy a home, so he is still a slave to the Jewish bankers.

>>17849614
Blacks sometimes misunderstand understand that the white man's modern conception of rights really is frufru hippy bullshit and they should chill out. But if we ever snap back to legal reality and start seriously looking at the constitution we're going to start noticing a lot of good things, and some hilarious problems.

>>17849583
True, am an American slave handler and can confirm.

>>17849464 (OP)
If it doesn't not contribute to the victim complex non-whites it might as well not exist.

Free blacks were a thing in New Orleans, where the racial caste system was similar to Latin America rather than the black/white binary in the rest of the south. “Creole” originally meant a person of European descent born in the colonies, but in New Orleans was attached to mixed race French speaking people who enjoyed a certain amount of social and economic freedom before and after the war. The current pope is descended from a Creole family.

>>17849760
I'd kill for some boudin

>>17849464 (OP)
>Free people of color
that's nice, you can keep them, I don't want them, not even for free

>>17849760
Why do people like yourself just make stuff up?

>>17849812
A "free" black person is a misnomer anyways, like a mule that nobody currently claims which could be claimed by anyone and put to work at any time.

>>17849464 (OP)
the one in your pic is british

>>17849571
In the 1930s when farm tractors replaced the mules and horses to pull plows and wagons the sharecropper way of life went extinct, a lot of blacks went out of business back then
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharecropping

>>17849973
blacks weren't sharecroppers, they mostly just did seasonal cotton picking and hoed the ground their ancestors did 80 years before

>>17850033
What color did you say?

>>17850138
No matter anyway, by the 1940s sharecropping was all but gone,

In agriculture today about all you see done by hand is hoeing weeds and harvesting vegetables and between AI and robotics those two jobs will be replaced by AI & robotics by the end of the decade

>>17849812
I didn’t think I implied that was exclusively a Louisiana thing and I’m well aware of other free black communities, like Seneca Village where Central Park is today, or others in Brooklyn, Long Island and the Hudson Valley.

>>17850138
10% of blacks in the south were sharecroppers. That means 90% were white. Blacks in some states are around 50% of the population, meaning blacks were disproportionately not sharecroppers. Every time we talk about the black in the south he doesn't seem to actually be doing anything does he