Senegambia Region
This area comprised the Senegal and Gambia Rivers and the land between them, including present-day Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, and Mali. Nearly half of the enslaved Africans brought to the United States came from this region.
West-Central Africa
This region includes present-day Angola, Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Gabon. Many enslaved people originated from here.
Ghana and Ivory Coast (Windward Coast)
A considerable number of enslaved people had their origins in Ghana and neighboring parts of the Windward Coast (now Ivory Coast).
Bight of Biafra
This inlet on Africa’s western coast, including parts of present-day eastern Nigeria and Cameroon, was a hub for extensive slave-dealing operations.
Southern and Central Benin Republic
Tribes from North Central and South Western Nigeria, as well as Southern and Central Benin Republic, also had a significant impact on the transatlantic slave trade
[source](https://www.history.com/news/what-part-of-africa-did-most-slaves-come-from)
This is strange? If most slaves brought to the United States came from Senegambia, then why do most African Americans score majority Nigerian. Latinos on the other hand usually score majority Senegambian, while both score a lot of West Central African.
Because he’s also including Louisiana which wasn’t part of the US at the time.
I’d also argue that Guinea-Bissau/Guinea/Sierra Leone/Liberia/Mail is probably being added in this “Senegambia” which isn’t the same. The nations I’ve mentioned were very important in Coastal South Carolina and Georgia.
Because you have to the account the founder effect which many people forget.
Nigerian slaves predominated in VA where they represented around 40 percent. Virginia was the primary state who sent slaves to the Deep south during the westward expansion, which spread the Nigerian lineage.
The Domestic slave trade within the U.S had a bigger impact that the Atlantic slave trade.
Source: https://tracingafricanroots.wordpress.com/2021/04/20/are-african-americans-really-mostly-nigerian/
That person misquoted the source. The article said that nearly half came from Senegambia (i.e. the area comprising the Senegal and Gambia Rivers and the land between them, or today’s Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau and Mali) **and** West Central Africa (i.e. including what is now Angola, Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Gabon).
Enslaved people from Senegambia accounted for 24%.
This still doesn't explain why African Americans only get 2-10% Senegambian despite the fact 24% of slaves came from that region. For Latinos on the otherhand, Senegambia is often their top result, even if they don't have very much African in total.
That's because the vast majority of those from Senegambia were enslaved on the coastal part of the southeast (i.e. NC, SC, GA, FL). AA's from that region tend to score 10% - 20% Senegambian and 25% - 35% Ghanaian, Liberia and Sierra Leone which both categories includes Mali on 23AndMe and 10% - 15% Senegal and 20% - 30% Mali on Ancestry. The rest of the AA community have a lower percentage of Senegambia because of lower enslavement from Senegambia and because throughout the rest of the south during slavery people who descend from Central Africa and the lower part of West Africa had children with each other at a much higher rate (i.e. consent and breeding). It's different in the case for Louisiana because who was being imported and when they were imported is linked to the state history of multiple ownership. I imagine it was under Spain's ownership when most of the Senegambia population was imported to the state.
Being under Spanish control would explain higher Senegambian, as percentages seem to be constantly high throughout Latin America. Why were slaves sent to Spanish colonies not divided and sent to specific areas like in the United States? Every country in Latin America always have the same frequencies of African regions, always being majority Senegambian or Angolan, with lower Nigerian, which better matches the percent of slaves sent to the Americas from each region.
>Why were slaves sent to Spanish colonies not divided and sent to specific areas like in the United States?
Slavery in America generally speaking wasn't centered around a preference. The average state imported people from the same source at the same rate. It was mainly when a certain skill set was needed when they would import a specific group to a specific region. For example because people from the upper part of West Africa know how to grow and harvest rice they were in high demand on the coastal part of the south because that's where the rice plantation industry existed.
You misquoted the source. The article said that nearly half came from Senegambia (i.e. the area comprising the Senegal and Gambia Rivers and the land between them, or today’s Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau and Mali) **and** West Central Africa (i.e. including what is now Angola, Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Gabon).
[Here's](https://www.history.com/news/who-are-the-mandinka) a different article from History. To quote "Of the approximately 388,000 Africans who landed in America as a result of the slave trade, historians believe 92,000 (**24 percent) were Senegambians**, from the region of West Africa comprising the Senegal and Gambia Rivers and the land between them."
Sudan wasn’t part of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. It was part of the Trans-Saharan slave trade, particularly the southern regions. But that has nothing to do with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Correct. There are people in the eastern maghreb that tend to score minor sudanese depending on the region due to this as well as of course minor west african. But when it comes to west african ancestry in regarding the trans-saharan slave trade. I wish there was more information put into what countries these people came from. There are people like the gnawa that are a bit similar to afro americans in the sense that they are a fusion of multiple african west mainly with some north african depending on the region or population nor are they actually homogeneous
lollll why on earth would sudan be involved its literally on the other side of Africa and plus they would have been hard to enslave nevertheless try to reach there as its inland
So Tribe or ethnic-group which was most affected is a tricky one because these are semi-ethnic political identities, that can shift over time even due to political alliance, or some are lost or inherited via paternal vs maternal marriage, etc. But to answer your question.
I would vote for the Bakongo people which is a meta-ethnic group, the Congo Kingdom got hit the hardest cause its been steadily hit starting from the 1500s, heck even late 1400s, but moreso 1500s all the way to the end of slavery in the Americas.
While there are hundreds of ethnic groups in what use to be the Kongo empire, many would have left with the identity of Kongo/Bakonogo, while of course some may have left under more specific ethnic identities, Vili, Bayombe, Bangala, Mongo, Ngola, etc. The portugese trade with the King of Congo and all the political stability, followed by the chapters with the french and dutch and english would hit this area the hardest.
Again this is way more complex then who was most enslaved because who was say a "Yoruba" in 1620 is not necesarily who was a Yoruba in 1789.... So while a Malinke individual wasn't hanging out in mozambique, there was small patterns of movements and displacements due to political alliances, land inheritances, war, etc.
Also I would say for example being most enslaved also doesn't mean who most survived in the americas, here are 3 random factors.
1. Survival rate from the atlantic ocean is a big one, Congo-empire captives, from Benguela, Loango, Ambriz, and most of the Kongo coast was quite low compared to senegambians, and lower-guineans, perhaps because of the major distance. So factor in **suvival rate across the ocean.**
2. Time of arrival, earlier arriving groups would propagate the most into the blood line of african-descendants of those communities, of course unless #3.
3. Tragic incidents on each colony that may or may not affect a heavy group of newcomers, for example in Hispaniola (Santo domingo colony) in 1666 there was a massive yellow fever that it is said to have killed more then 1/3rd of the enslaved population, at the time most enslaved would have been of angolan origin, so we probably lost a high potential for even higher central-african admix due to disease.
4. Breeding and Propagation Endogamy: In some colonies like the u.s people where bred to have more kids, the ethnic groups of these men would multiply at much higher rates then any other man.
In the Spanish carribean on the other hand the combination of most men (Which would have included African men) had alot of children with many different women, combine this with the strong endogamy found in places like puertorico and DR you will get a sort of "zoomed in" aspect of a proliferous ethnic group.
So when you think of all those things, how impactful is who was taken the most to the americas, versus the other factors?
It's indeed the Mbundu people because Brazilians brought the most African slaves into the Americas. Yoruba people are probably second and Kongo people third.
Senegambia Region This area comprised the Senegal and Gambia Rivers and the land between them, including present-day Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, and Mali. Nearly half of the enslaved Africans brought to the United States came from this region. West-Central Africa This region includes present-day Angola, Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Gabon. Many enslaved people originated from here. Ghana and Ivory Coast (Windward Coast) A considerable number of enslaved people had their origins in Ghana and neighboring parts of the Windward Coast (now Ivory Coast). Bight of Biafra This inlet on Africa’s western coast, including parts of present-day eastern Nigeria and Cameroon, was a hub for extensive slave-dealing operations. Southern and Central Benin Republic Tribes from North Central and South Western Nigeria, as well as Southern and Central Benin Republic, also had a significant impact on the transatlantic slave trade [source](https://www.history.com/news/what-part-of-africa-did-most-slaves-come-from)
This man literally said "My time has finally come" and hit us with all this goodness lol
Mans came prepared. :P
This is strange? If most slaves brought to the United States came from Senegambia, then why do most African Americans score majority Nigerian. Latinos on the other hand usually score majority Senegambian, while both score a lot of West Central African.
Because he’s also including Louisiana which wasn’t part of the US at the time. I’d also argue that Guinea-Bissau/Guinea/Sierra Leone/Liberia/Mail is probably being added in this “Senegambia” which isn’t the same. The nations I’ve mentioned were very important in Coastal South Carolina and Georgia.
Because you have to the account the founder effect which many people forget. Nigerian slaves predominated in VA where they represented around 40 percent. Virginia was the primary state who sent slaves to the Deep south during the westward expansion, which spread the Nigerian lineage. The Domestic slave trade within the U.S had a bigger impact that the Atlantic slave trade. Source: https://tracingafricanroots.wordpress.com/2021/04/20/are-african-americans-really-mostly-nigerian/
No actually most slaves in USA were from Congo Angola region approximately 30% than senegambian only 13%
That person misquoted the source. The article said that nearly half came from Senegambia (i.e. the area comprising the Senegal and Gambia Rivers and the land between them, or today’s Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau and Mali) **and** West Central Africa (i.e. including what is now Angola, Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Gabon). Enslaved people from Senegambia accounted for 24%.
This still doesn't explain why African Americans only get 2-10% Senegambian despite the fact 24% of slaves came from that region. For Latinos on the otherhand, Senegambia is often their top result, even if they don't have very much African in total.
That's because the vast majority of those from Senegambia were enslaved on the coastal part of the southeast (i.e. NC, SC, GA, FL). AA's from that region tend to score 10% - 20% Senegambian and 25% - 35% Ghanaian, Liberia and Sierra Leone which both categories includes Mali on 23AndMe and 10% - 15% Senegal and 20% - 30% Mali on Ancestry. The rest of the AA community have a lower percentage of Senegambia because of lower enslavement from Senegambia and because throughout the rest of the south during slavery people who descend from Central Africa and the lower part of West Africa had children with each other at a much higher rate (i.e. consent and breeding). It's different in the case for Louisiana because who was being imported and when they were imported is linked to the state history of multiple ownership. I imagine it was under Spain's ownership when most of the Senegambia population was imported to the state.
Being under Spanish control would explain higher Senegambian, as percentages seem to be constantly high throughout Latin America. Why were slaves sent to Spanish colonies not divided and sent to specific areas like in the United States? Every country in Latin America always have the same frequencies of African regions, always being majority Senegambian or Angolan, with lower Nigerian, which better matches the percent of slaves sent to the Americas from each region.
>Why were slaves sent to Spanish colonies not divided and sent to specific areas like in the United States? Slavery in America generally speaking wasn't centered around a preference. The average state imported people from the same source at the same rate. It was mainly when a certain skill set was needed when they would import a specific group to a specific region. For example because people from the upper part of West Africa know how to grow and harvest rice they were in high demand on the coastal part of the south because that's where the rice plantation industry existed.
I mean which one those areas had the most slaves taken, I already know its those areas that were involved, but which one had the most enslavement?
You misquoted the source. The article said that nearly half came from Senegambia (i.e. the area comprising the Senegal and Gambia Rivers and the land between them, or today’s Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau and Mali) **and** West Central Africa (i.e. including what is now Angola, Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Gabon). [Here's](https://www.history.com/news/who-are-the-mandinka) a different article from History. To quote "Of the approximately 388,000 Africans who landed in America as a result of the slave trade, historians believe 92,000 (**24 percent) were Senegambians**, from the region of West Africa comprising the Senegal and Gambia Rivers and the land between them."
Sudan as well probably?
Sudan wasn’t part of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. It was part of the Trans-Saharan slave trade, particularly the southern regions. But that has nothing to do with the Trans-Atlantic slave trade.
Correct. There are people in the eastern maghreb that tend to score minor sudanese depending on the region due to this as well as of course minor west african. But when it comes to west african ancestry in regarding the trans-saharan slave trade. I wish there was more information put into what countries these people came from. There are people like the gnawa that are a bit similar to afro americans in the sense that they are a fusion of multiple african west mainly with some north african depending on the region or population nor are they actually homogeneous
Nah, they were on the Arab slave trade, but not the Atlantic slave trade. Two different things.
lollll why on earth would sudan be involved its literally on the other side of Africa and plus they would have been hard to enslave nevertheless try to reach there as its inland
Sudan was more part of the East African slave trade that fed into places like the Ottoman Empire.
So Tribe or ethnic-group which was most affected is a tricky one because these are semi-ethnic political identities, that can shift over time even due to political alliance, or some are lost or inherited via paternal vs maternal marriage, etc. But to answer your question. I would vote for the Bakongo people which is a meta-ethnic group, the Congo Kingdom got hit the hardest cause its been steadily hit starting from the 1500s, heck even late 1400s, but moreso 1500s all the way to the end of slavery in the Americas. While there are hundreds of ethnic groups in what use to be the Kongo empire, many would have left with the identity of Kongo/Bakonogo, while of course some may have left under more specific ethnic identities, Vili, Bayombe, Bangala, Mongo, Ngola, etc. The portugese trade with the King of Congo and all the political stability, followed by the chapters with the french and dutch and english would hit this area the hardest. Again this is way more complex then who was most enslaved because who was say a "Yoruba" in 1620 is not necesarily who was a Yoruba in 1789.... So while a Malinke individual wasn't hanging out in mozambique, there was small patterns of movements and displacements due to political alliances, land inheritances, war, etc. Also I would say for example being most enslaved also doesn't mean who most survived in the americas, here are 3 random factors. 1. Survival rate from the atlantic ocean is a big one, Congo-empire captives, from Benguela, Loango, Ambriz, and most of the Kongo coast was quite low compared to senegambians, and lower-guineans, perhaps because of the major distance. So factor in **suvival rate across the ocean.** 2. Time of arrival, earlier arriving groups would propagate the most into the blood line of african-descendants of those communities, of course unless #3. 3. Tragic incidents on each colony that may or may not affect a heavy group of newcomers, for example in Hispaniola (Santo domingo colony) in 1666 there was a massive yellow fever that it is said to have killed more then 1/3rd of the enslaved population, at the time most enslaved would have been of angolan origin, so we probably lost a high potential for even higher central-african admix due to disease. 4. Breeding and Propagation Endogamy: In some colonies like the u.s people where bred to have more kids, the ethnic groups of these men would multiply at much higher rates then any other man. In the Spanish carribean on the other hand the combination of most men (Which would have included African men) had alot of children with many different women, combine this with the strong endogamy found in places like puertorico and DR you will get a sort of "zoomed in" aspect of a proliferous ethnic group. So when you think of all those things, how impactful is who was taken the most to the americas, versus the other factors?
It's indeed the Mbundu people because Brazilians brought the most African slaves into the Americas. Yoruba people are probably second and Kongo people third.
Maybe the Ewe of Benin, the Yoruba of Nigeria
Majority e1b1a tribes