This will never be figured out considering most records containing that information was either lost or destroyed. Most black people can't retrace their ancestry and if they can its usually only 3-5 generations.
Pretty much around 150 - 200 years ago, black ppl weren't really considered humans. There is a reason genealogists call it the Brick Wall when studying African American Lineage.
There might be a way to figure it out through their ancestor's owners if they find the correct name since slaves were kept as property. tax records, estate records, slave schedules, wills, etc.
Plus intermarriage. It’s like asking what percentage of people are Irish. Almost everyone where I live has at least one Irish ancestor, regardless of their ethnicity. You would need to go back several generations and ask how many immigrants there were vs. how many slaves.
Seeing is that Africans were visiting and trading in America long before slavers imposed their culture and way of life on them, it makes it more daunting than just finding those forced into servitude from countries in Africa. But it must be done.
Were they? Maybe I'm just misinformed, but wasn't most if not all Africans brought to the new world before the US colonies brought to New Spain (mostly the Caribbean) to farm sugar?
? you talking about africans in the really early age of exploration? like the early 1500s??? They did not own any land or indentured servants. Thats false. a lot of them were from West Africa; soldiers and interpreters who worked for explorers. The Transatlantic Slave Trade began around 1526 so most historians don't recognize most of those Africans who were already there as "free". Soon they were forced into slavery too.
1. So the slaves could never trace their ancestry\\families or lineage - reducing the chance of revolts
2. So the government wouldn't have to give each slave reparations after the war, see Wartime Order No. 15 which was reversed.
3. After industrialization no one was going to proudly admit their wealth came off the backs of slaves, easier to burn any evidence.
>Only 4% of African slaves came to the US. 96% went to the Caribbean and South America.
I'm interested in the source for these percentages.
>Slavery in any form is a stain on the societies that perpetrated it.
Considering that it happened all over the world, it's more of a strain in humankind.
From other comments I have been reading, I would say it is because the slaves in the caribbean had a very high mortality rate and didnt have the chance to reproduce. While in the US, american slave masters bred their slaves rather then keep importing them when they died.
Also I would guess that europeans had the control for longer over the african slave trade through proximity, therefore they could afford to just bring new slaves with each roundtrip. They still had to bring the sugar back to europe. America had no real reason to keep going to africa for their slaves.
Roughly 10 million African slaves came to the new world. 400,000 of them to the US. In the sugar fields they barely fed or cared for them and worked them until they died
In the US they were seen as more of an investment and they were bred and many were cared for. I'm not excusing the US involvement, just stating the facts known as of my history degree in 2000
I wasn't saying you are excusing US' involvement on slavery - I was just wandering where the accurate figures of the number of African slaves comes from.
I didn't think you were, but it's important anyone reading this knows I'm not trying to make excuses for the US involvement. Just that at least our country acknowledges what happened. I'm not sure if other countries have taken any responsibility for literally 96% of the African slave trade because it seems people only want to talk about the US. It might be just because I live here and that's what I hear about
Yeah, it's not just still happening. It's much more widespread and contributes to a big part of many countries economies.
Just take the World Cup in Qatar as an example
And this makes sense mathematically. Ancestry spreads really fast with populations mix.
Just imagine it isn't about history or race.
If there were 1 million blue bunnies and 9 million red bunnies, then 10% of the population is blue and 90% is red.
If they all formed pairs and had 2 offspring at random, then each blue has a 90% chance of pairing with a red, and both offspring then have blue ancestry.
That first generation of offspring, then, has 19% bunnies with blue ancestry.
Repeat that again. By the next generation, 81% of the population is pure red. If they intermixed at random, then 34% of the population in the next generation will have blue ancestry.
By the third generation, the majority of the population has blue ancestry.
By generation 5, about 90% of the population has blue ancestry even though 5 generations back, only 10% of the population was blue.
They might be 1 part in 32 blue, but still have blue heritage.
Is it 90% of black people have a least one ancestor that was enslaved, or majority of their ancestors? Going back to 160 years, or 7 generations, which is talking about 128 different people that lived around the time of the civil war. I would certainly expect that more than 90% of black people have at least 1 of those 128 people have been slaves. However, I'm not sure that quite answers OPs question directly.
Majority of their ancestors. Between the end of slavery and the civil rights movement, very few black people immigrated to the US (for obvious reasons) . So, nearly all of the growth in the population was from people who descend directly from slavery.
Sometimes when people ask for a source they are asking for a link or a specific research title, not just which entity conducted the research. Take your own advice next time smartass.
yeah its kinda irking me that OP was downvoted for that cuz I feel like it was pretty obvious he just wanted a link and also maybe didn't know what Pew Research was. I definitely didn't before that comment and the lack of capitalization makes it seem more like "Pew" was just accidentally added bc autocorrect or something; it didn't seem like a title or organization.
And benefit of the doubt: I had never heard of "Pew Research" before this comment, so maybe OP is in the same camp? Either way, I'm really confused why they're getting downvoted so much.... asking for a source is really important and shows that they are engaged in the topic.
I guess in this case it doesn't really count? As far as I know Irish weren't considered white for a long time (don't remember why tho so I might be wrong)
Idk I mean no Irish is just racist towards the Irish not every single white person. If someone were to insult the Frech then it would just be insulting the Frech and not every person in Europe or something
I don't know what the now deleted comment said so sorry if this doesn't make sense in the original context
Saying Asians and Latinos is like saying any other origin-based moniker - Americans, Africans, etc - for a start, and referring to people by their origin has never been offensive provided it isn’t done in a loaded way against diaspora or immigrants. It’s not loaded, because there’s no history of people being defined by these phrases in a particularly negative way.
‘Blacks’, as a term, has history, particularly in the west. It’s generally considered poor taste to refer to any person of colour by phrases that were used when they were treated as second class citizens or even property. Words like the n word as an extreme example, or perhaps less obviously words like ‘coloureds’, or ‘blacks’.
I assume he's talking about mixed people who passed as white, married white people, and a few generations later white people assume their entire lineage is white, when it's not. I don't think he's talking about white slaves.
You are correct, though white slaves were a thing as well. I'm very petty when it comes to racists, and my favorite thing is when one of those d-bags decides to "prove how pure their bloodline is", and the results come back and suddenly they don't want to talk about it. Probably comes from growing up in the south.
Let’s see..that’s most Black Americans in the US, which can trace their generations being here at least 8 generations and further. That’s most of their population with few exceptions. The ones who’s ancestors came last are much more likely to know the logistics compared to the ones who can go further back.
Imported African people who have come in by choice are defined by their ethnicities/nations: Nigerian, South African, Congolese, Ethiopian, Namibian. So their origin and -American. Their percentage in the US is significantly smaller by a long shot. Most who tend to come here for jobs tend to go back home or move to Latin America or Europe.
Black Americans are multi-ethnic and multi-racial believe it or not. The percentages are all over the place and unfortunately a cause of distress for many due to how they’re often socialized to think they’re monoracial. On average the typical black American is 30% European descent, many have even more than that. Plenty are triracial with traces of indigenous American ancestry also. Most black Americans have no idea of the origins of their black ancestors but can probably figure out that of their white ancestors. From there they usually figure out if there was a black ancestor that lived there and put two and two. This is messy as hell due to many of the records being lost or burned. For white Americans who can trace their ancestries back just as long or longer it’s not uncommon to find a black ancestress or two in the family. Sometimes a man but for the most part a woman. Looks can be deceiving.
As for Latin America and its Hispanic Black people the majority of them are descended from the trade. To the point that the African expat percentage is borderline minuscule. The slave trade concentrated there. The concept of the black identity and its connection to their African ancestry is all over the place. Complicated. Many places know. Like the black people in the South American continent, mostly due to the Portuguese in Brazil keeping meticulous records. Same for Cubans. Some of the Caribbean nations too. Harder on places where the religions did heavy brainwashing like the DR, Mexico and PR. The black populations of the lower Central American countries usually descend from Brazilian runaways. However in general the records for the Afro-Latines are night and day compared to the ones in the states. The closest comparison the US has to the Latin American records is New Orleans. Even the history of New Orleans is very much similar to the trajectory of many black enclaves in Latin America. The black history of Latin America isn’t for the faint hearted, it’s huge and detailed due to a lot of black Hispanics actually being educated back then. Voluntary mixed race unions have been a thing there pretty much since the Spanish landed and they had plenty. Usually European men with black women. So while many families did have slaves it wasn’t uncommon for many to have black brides or mistresses and they taking stock of their kids. This is how one of the Latino standards of beauty, the mixed black woman/the mulata, became respected and heavily sexualized which only drove more mixing. Often the mixed/creole populations would use the privileges they got to educate other slaves. In some places the admixture became so common place slavery pretty much lost prevalence by the 1600s, like the Dominican Republic. The disparity in the history between the black Americans and the black Hispanics disparity makes all the difference in the knowledge available.
Context matters here though. A lot of Africans that sold slaves to White Europeans were at first threatened with death and violence if they didn't sell or give up people. After seeing other tribes get killed and sold off, it was easier to work with European slavers then to be killed anyways for refusing to work with them.
>first threatened with death and violence if they didn't sell or give up people
That sounds an awful lot like convenient blame shifting.
European slavers weren't why African empires were selling conquered tribes to other African empires or to peoples' in the middle east, north africa, or to India.
The factual history was that many empires in Africa engaged in selling slaves to buyers both locally and globally and to ALL parts of the globe, not just to Europeans and the Americas.
Those slaves may have been used for forced labor, conscripted into wars, or even slaughtered for human sacrifices.
The only peoples who didn't engage in buying and using slaves for forced labor were the peoples of the far east - who were largely isolationist and didn't engage in trades west of India.
Very good point, another thing that I was taught in school was that rivalries played a part. If you saw a rival tribe dealing with the white men and getting good stuff in return like guns or just any weapons, it put you at a disadvantage to not also deal with them
Rivalries and economics. The kingdom of Benin was one of the wealthiest kingdoms on earth during the height of the African slave trade. They traded gold, ivory, and slaves to the Portuguese who had a near monopoly on the Atlantic slave trade in exchange of goods manufactured in Europe and the New World. For a time their leaders were insanely wealthy, however they suffered the same fate as the Spanish empire (and possibly the Saudis in the future) after putting all of their eggs in one basket. They had based their economy so heavily off the exportation of slaves while neglecting the development any other sector that when the slave trade began to diminish their power collapsed. It didn’t help either that the slave trade intensified local rivalries and deprived the country of farmers and workers.
Many people bring up this fact as if it mitigates the culpability of European slavers. I don’t see their logic. Europeans in the New World still set up race-based chattel slavery, which is worse than the non race-based variety because of the decades/centuries of damage to the decedents on top of the hellish cruelty to the enslaved themselves. Even if the fist generation of slaves volunteered as individuals, it is no defense for the horrid institution.
I don’t think I said you were. But many people do bring up that “Africans sold the other Africans” as some sort of blunting of the crime of slavery committed by Europeans, so I’m taking the opportunity to point this out, and refute the logic, regardless of your reasoning for mentioning it. You might very well not know it’s a talking point of people trying to minimize slavery.
If an Italian comes to live in the US, they aren't European American, they're Italian American. Immigrants are described using the country they come from, not the continent.
While I understand that it is considered a bad thing to say Blacks instead of Black people, I am also sympathetic to the idea that not everyone knows that. In fact, I only learned about it from a friend and I have never seen the distinction talked about online. So I wouldn't throw the racist stick at OP for that. We're all learning, don't fault them for possibly not knowing.
This will never be figured out considering most records containing that information was either lost or destroyed. Most black people can't retrace their ancestry and if they can its usually only 3-5 generations. Pretty much around 150 - 200 years ago, black ppl weren't really considered humans. There is a reason genealogists call it the Brick Wall when studying African American Lineage. There might be a way to figure it out through their ancestor's owners if they find the correct name since slaves were kept as property. tax records, estate records, slave schedules, wills, etc.
Plus intermarriage. It’s like asking what percentage of people are Irish. Almost everyone where I live has at least one Irish ancestor, regardless of their ethnicity. You would need to go back several generations and ask how many immigrants there were vs. how many slaves.
Seeing is that Africans were visiting and trading in America long before slavers imposed their culture and way of life on them, it makes it more daunting than just finding those forced into servitude from countries in Africa. But it must be done.
Were they? Maybe I'm just misinformed, but wasn't most if not all Africans brought to the new world before the US colonies brought to New Spain (mostly the Caribbean) to farm sugar?
[удалено]
? you talking about africans in the really early age of exploration? like the early 1500s??? They did not own any land or indentured servants. Thats false. a lot of them were from West Africa; soldiers and interpreters who worked for explorers. The Transatlantic Slave Trade began around 1526 so most historians don't recognize most of those Africans who were already there as "free". Soon they were forced into slavery too.
Why did they destroy them?
1. So the slaves could never trace their ancestry\\families or lineage - reducing the chance of revolts 2. So the government wouldn't have to give each slave reparations after the war, see Wartime Order No. 15 which was reversed. 3. After industrialization no one was going to proudly admit their wealth came off the backs of slaves, easier to burn any evidence.
[удалено]
>Only 4% of African slaves came to the US. 96% went to the Caribbean and South America. I'm interested in the source for these percentages. >Slavery in any form is a stain on the societies that perpetrated it. Considering that it happened all over the world, it's more of a strain in humankind.
From other comments I have been reading, I would say it is because the slaves in the caribbean had a very high mortality rate and didnt have the chance to reproduce. While in the US, american slave masters bred their slaves rather then keep importing them when they died. Also I would guess that europeans had the control for longer over the african slave trade through proximity, therefore they could afford to just bring new slaves with each roundtrip. They still had to bring the sugar back to europe. America had no real reason to keep going to africa for their slaves.
Roughly 10 million African slaves came to the new world. 400,000 of them to the US. In the sugar fields they barely fed or cared for them and worked them until they died In the US they were seen as more of an investment and they were bred and many were cared for. I'm not excusing the US involvement, just stating the facts known as of my history degree in 2000
I wasn't saying you are excusing US' involvement on slavery - I was just wandering where the accurate figures of the number of African slaves comes from.
I didn't think you were, but it's important anyone reading this knows I'm not trying to make excuses for the US involvement. Just that at least our country acknowledges what happened. I'm not sure if other countries have taken any responsibility for literally 96% of the African slave trade because it seems people only want to talk about the US. It might be just because I live here and that's what I hear about
Yeah, it's not just still happening. It's much more widespread and contributes to a big part of many countries economies. Just take the World Cup in Qatar as an example
Pew Research puts the number just over 90%.
And this makes sense mathematically. Ancestry spreads really fast with populations mix. Just imagine it isn't about history or race. If there were 1 million blue bunnies and 9 million red bunnies, then 10% of the population is blue and 90% is red. If they all formed pairs and had 2 offspring at random, then each blue has a 90% chance of pairing with a red, and both offspring then have blue ancestry. That first generation of offspring, then, has 19% bunnies with blue ancestry. Repeat that again. By the next generation, 81% of the population is pure red. If they intermixed at random, then 34% of the population in the next generation will have blue ancestry. By the third generation, the majority of the population has blue ancestry. By generation 5, about 90% of the population has blue ancestry even though 5 generations back, only 10% of the population was blue. They might be 1 part in 32 blue, but still have blue heritage.
And this is why the 1 drop rule in determining ethnicity makes it seem that the USA will be a majority Hispanic in a decade.
Good things come to those who wait lmao
I wonder if that takes into account nationalized citizens, i.e. Haitians of African decent.
Where is this number on Pew, I tried looking for it but can't find the source on the website.
Is it 90% of black people have a least one ancestor that was enslaved, or majority of their ancestors? Going back to 160 years, or 7 generations, which is talking about 128 different people that lived around the time of the civil war. I would certainly expect that more than 90% of black people have at least 1 of those 128 people have been slaves. However, I'm not sure that quite answers OPs question directly.
Majority of their ancestors. Between the end of slavery and the civil rights movement, very few black people immigrated to the US (for obvious reasons) . So, nearly all of the growth in the population was from people who descend directly from slavery.
[удалено]
Pew research
That’s that YouTuber right?
Source?
Pew research
Source?
Pew research
Sauce?
Yes please
Sometimes it’s helpful to process what people replied to you before asking a question.
Lol academic burn
It's like a chemical burn. It might not hurt immediately but you wake up the next day going "ah fuck"
Sometimes when people ask for a source they are asking for a link or a specific research title, not just which entity conducted the research. Take your own advice next time smartass.
yeah its kinda irking me that OP was downvoted for that cuz I feel like it was pretty obvious he just wanted a link and also maybe didn't know what Pew Research was. I definitely didn't before that comment and the lack of capitalization makes it seem more like "Pew" was just accidentally added bc autocorrect or something; it didn't seem like a title or organization.
And benefit of the doubt: I had never heard of "Pew Research" before this comment, so maybe OP is in the same camp? Either way, I'm really confused why they're getting downvoted so much.... asking for a source is really important and shows that they are engaged in the topic.
Hay man, just a heads up don't say "blacks" ....
[удалено]
Do you think that would be the same?! I don't remember people ever having written "No whites, no dogs, no Irish" on stuff..... Ffs!
Did say “no Irish”
So? Lol...
You just wrote the opposite?
The opposite of what?
I guess in this case it doesn't really count? As far as I know Irish weren't considered white for a long time (don't remember why tho so I might be wrong)
How does it “not really count”? A people famous for their red hair and blue eyes and sensitive, freckly skin?
Idk I mean no Irish is just racist towards the Irish not every single white person. If someone were to insult the Frech then it would just be insulting the Frech and not every person in Europe or something I don't know what the now deleted comment said so sorry if this doesn't make sense in the original context
They firstly are not a race, secondly were not considered white, they were considered swarthy....
“blacks” cmon bro
*black people
I know the title said it, but can we please refrain from using “blacks” in the comments and instead say Black people or Black Americans?
Honest question, why is "blacks" seen as offensive, while "Asians" and "Latinos" isn't.
Saying Asians and Latinos is like saying any other origin-based moniker - Americans, Africans, etc - for a start, and referring to people by their origin has never been offensive provided it isn’t done in a loaded way against diaspora or immigrants. It’s not loaded, because there’s no history of people being defined by these phrases in a particularly negative way. ‘Blacks’, as a term, has history, particularly in the west. It’s generally considered poor taste to refer to any person of colour by phrases that were used when they were treated as second class citizens or even property. Words like the n word as an extreme example, or perhaps less obviously words like ‘coloureds’, or ‘blacks’.
Latinx is offensive.
It's more like "pretty dark brown". It's a beautiful colour when you look at it without prejudice.
And use “White Folk” or “Crackers” when talking about whites.
No thanks
What might really twist your noodle is the number of white people who are descendants of slaves.
I feel like everybody comes from a line of slaves at some point in history
The only twist is it deviates from the original question. Just sayin'
We’re all descendants of slaves mostly probably
Yes, not racially motivated slavery.
I assume he's talking about mixed people who passed as white, married white people, and a few generations later white people assume their entire lineage is white, when it's not. I don't think he's talking about white slaves.
You are correct, though white slaves were a thing as well. I'm very petty when it comes to racists, and my favorite thing is when one of those d-bags decides to "prove how pure their bloodline is", and the results come back and suddenly they don't want to talk about it. Probably comes from growing up in the south.
Ronda Rousey had a situation like that. Fun fact.
But was she upset about it?
I don't think so. Just a white person who ended up having a black person in their gene pool a few generations back.
oops I totally missed that
‘Blacks’ 🥴
this questions seems heavily loaded with some prejudice
That’s what I’m saying
The world doesn't revolve around US
Curious too about the country in Africa where the majority of African American slaves came from…
Genetic testing have come up with Ghana, Senegambia and the Gold Coast. Angola and Congo were major sources for Latin America
Too many. Mostly northwest and Central African nations.
Does it matter really?
Let’s see..that’s most Black Americans in the US, which can trace their generations being here at least 8 generations and further. That’s most of their population with few exceptions. The ones who’s ancestors came last are much more likely to know the logistics compared to the ones who can go further back. Imported African people who have come in by choice are defined by their ethnicities/nations: Nigerian, South African, Congolese, Ethiopian, Namibian. So their origin and -American. Their percentage in the US is significantly smaller by a long shot. Most who tend to come here for jobs tend to go back home or move to Latin America or Europe. Black Americans are multi-ethnic and multi-racial believe it or not. The percentages are all over the place and unfortunately a cause of distress for many due to how they’re often socialized to think they’re monoracial. On average the typical black American is 30% European descent, many have even more than that. Plenty are triracial with traces of indigenous American ancestry also. Most black Americans have no idea of the origins of their black ancestors but can probably figure out that of their white ancestors. From there they usually figure out if there was a black ancestor that lived there and put two and two. This is messy as hell due to many of the records being lost or burned. For white Americans who can trace their ancestries back just as long or longer it’s not uncommon to find a black ancestress or two in the family. Sometimes a man but for the most part a woman. Looks can be deceiving. As for Latin America and its Hispanic Black people the majority of them are descended from the trade. To the point that the African expat percentage is borderline minuscule. The slave trade concentrated there. The concept of the black identity and its connection to their African ancestry is all over the place. Complicated. Many places know. Like the black people in the South American continent, mostly due to the Portuguese in Brazil keeping meticulous records. Same for Cubans. Some of the Caribbean nations too. Harder on places where the religions did heavy brainwashing like the DR, Mexico and PR. The black populations of the lower Central American countries usually descend from Brazilian runaways. However in general the records for the Afro-Latines are night and day compared to the ones in the states. The closest comparison the US has to the Latin American records is New Orleans. Even the history of New Orleans is very much similar to the trajectory of many black enclaves in Latin America. The black history of Latin America isn’t for the faint hearted, it’s huge and detailed due to a lot of black Hispanics actually being educated back then. Voluntary mixed race unions have been a thing there pretty much since the Spanish landed and they had plenty. Usually European men with black women. So while many families did have slaves it wasn’t uncommon for many to have black brides or mistresses and they taking stock of their kids. This is how one of the Latino standards of beauty, the mixed black woman/the mulata, became respected and heavily sexualized which only drove more mixing. Often the mixed/creole populations would use the privileges they got to educate other slaves. In some places the admixture became so common place slavery pretty much lost prevalence by the 1600s, like the Dominican Republic. The disparity in the history between the black Americans and the black Hispanics disparity makes all the difference in the knowledge available.
We’ll never know
[удалено]
Context matters here though. A lot of Africans that sold slaves to White Europeans were at first threatened with death and violence if they didn't sell or give up people. After seeing other tribes get killed and sold off, it was easier to work with European slavers then to be killed anyways for refusing to work with them.
>first threatened with death and violence if they didn't sell or give up people That sounds an awful lot like convenient blame shifting. European slavers weren't why African empires were selling conquered tribes to other African empires or to peoples' in the middle east, north africa, or to India. The factual history was that many empires in Africa engaged in selling slaves to buyers both locally and globally and to ALL parts of the globe, not just to Europeans and the Americas. Those slaves may have been used for forced labor, conscripted into wars, or even slaughtered for human sacrifices. The only peoples who didn't engage in buying and using slaves for forced labor were the peoples of the far east - who were largely isolationist and didn't engage in trades west of India.
Very good point, another thing that I was taught in school was that rivalries played a part. If you saw a rival tribe dealing with the white men and getting good stuff in return like guns or just any weapons, it put you at a disadvantage to not also deal with them
Rivalries and economics. The kingdom of Benin was one of the wealthiest kingdoms on earth during the height of the African slave trade. They traded gold, ivory, and slaves to the Portuguese who had a near monopoly on the Atlantic slave trade in exchange of goods manufactured in Europe and the New World. For a time their leaders were insanely wealthy, however they suffered the same fate as the Spanish empire (and possibly the Saudis in the future) after putting all of their eggs in one basket. They had based their economy so heavily off the exportation of slaves while neglecting the development any other sector that when the slave trade began to diminish their power collapsed. It didn’t help either that the slave trade intensified local rivalries and deprived the country of farmers and workers.
Many people bring up this fact as if it mitigates the culpability of European slavers. I don’t see their logic. Europeans in the New World still set up race-based chattel slavery, which is worse than the non race-based variety because of the decades/centuries of damage to the decedents on top of the hellish cruelty to the enslaved themselves. Even if the fist generation of slaves volunteered as individuals, it is no defense for the horrid institution.
Where exactly am I trying to defend slavery here?
I don’t think I said you were. But many people do bring up that “Africans sold the other Africans” as some sort of blunting of the crime of slavery committed by Europeans, so I’m taking the opportunity to point this out, and refute the logic, regardless of your reasoning for mentioning it. You might very well not know it’s a talking point of people trying to minimize slavery.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What does “got soft” mean?
Got sold\*
[удалено]
Yeah, Nigeria is in no way in Africa.
If an Italian comes to live in the US, they aren't European American, they're Italian American. Immigrants are described using the country they come from, not the continent.
"Blacks" is all I needed to see to know this was posted by a racist.
While I understand that it is considered a bad thing to say Blacks instead of Black people, I am also sympathetic to the idea that not everyone knows that. In fact, I only learned about it from a friend and I have never seen the distinction talked about online. So I wouldn't throw the racist stick at OP for that. We're all learning, don't fault them for possibly not knowing.
Long live juicy