|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 2, 2023 11:27:04 GMT
The title refers to the book by David Olusoga, whose Wiki entry describes him as ‘one of the Top Ten most influential Black Britons’ and cites Manchester University as describing him as an expert on military history, empire, race and slavery, and "one of the UK's foremost historians".
The book ‘Black and British: A Forgotten History’ has received almost universal praise by reviewers in the legacy media, as has the accompanying TV series. But what I want to do here is not to present a revisionist review but to use Olusoga’s book as a primary source to answer the vexed question of just what the history of blacks in Britain actually amounts to.
Olusoga states that he seeks to he seeks to "illuminate the parts of British history in which black people were active participants” [p22]. He claims that “Black people were not only continually present from the 16th century onwards [they also] played a role in many of the pivotal moments of British history” [p30-31]". Furthermore, “The black history of Britain and the biographies of black Britons run through mainstream British history” [p31]. As evidence that this rich history has been largely ignored and forgotten, he cites an African-American historian who was told by an assistant in a London bookshop that there were no blacks in Britain before 1945, and points to correspondence in the Independent complaining about ‘20th century multiculturalists [who] invent a spurious history for black settlement in Britain before the Fifies and Sixties’” [p23].
This then is the dragon that Olusoga seeks to slay and he takes almost 707 pages in attempting to do so. But does he succeed? Well we’ll see. Next: Black Britain in the Roman era.
[Note: this is an edited and updated version of an article posted on the Politics Forum UK in November 2021]
|
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on May 3, 2023 19:27:13 GMT
In the 18th century a surprising number of Africans were recruited into the Royal Navy. When they finished their terms of service they were given land in England and married local White women. It has been claimed that in the latter part of the century some 5% of the population of England was Black.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 3, 2023 20:01:33 GMT
In the 18th century a surprising number of Africans were recruited into the Royal Navy. When they finished their terms of service they were given land in England and married local White women. It has been claimed that in the latter part of the century some 5% of the population of England was Black. Though some estimates put it as high as fifty percent. |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 3, 2023 20:42:26 GMT
In the 18th century a surprising number of Africans were recruited into the Royal Navy. When they finished their terms of service they were given land in England and married local White women. It has been claimed that in the latter part of the century some 5% of the population of England was Black. Olusoga, who is the doyen of historians specialising in Black British History, puts the population at 15 to 20 thousand at the height of the Georgian period. Given a total population of 8 million in 1800 that would mean a black population of 0.25%, so very much smaller even than the present one.
Perhaps you can provide a source for the 5% claim.
|
|
|
|
Post by seniorcitizen007 on May 3, 2023 22:56:26 GMT
It depends on who was classified as Black. From 1750 there was a flow of mixed race people, mainly males, from the West Indies to Britain ... who settled in rural areas. African sailors were given land and married white women. One quote from the time: "In almost every village one can see numerous mulattoes". Africans and people of African blood were more tolerated in rural areas. Maybe back then in England "Black" meant "Dark skinned" whilst people who were obviously "part-white" were accepted as "White"? Rural white people who spent much of their time outdoors in the sun would be tanned and closer in skin colour to mixed race people than city white people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 3, 2023 23:21:02 GMT
We’re all men recruited into the Royal navy in the 18th century given land after they finished their terms of service or just the black ones ?🤔
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 4, 2023 6:40:37 GMT
First I have heard of any sailors in the Royal Navy being given land when they finished their service - got a link to this idea?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 4, 2023 8:24:17 GMT
It depends on who was classified as Black. From 1750 there was a flow of mixed race people, mainly males, from the West Indies to Britain ... who settled in rural areas. African sailors were given land and married white women. One quote from the time: "In almost every village one can see numerous mulattoes". Africans and people of African blood were more tolerated in rural areas. Maybe back then in England "Black" meant "Dark skinned" whilst people who were obviously "part-white" were accepted as "White"? Rural white people who spent much of their time outdoors in the sun would be tanned and closer in skin colour to mixed race people than city white people. I think we can assume that David Olusoga will be motivated to maximise the black population at any point in time, so if he he claims 20,000 then that's good enough for me. (See p.386 of his book).
You seem to have alternative sources, what are they?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 4, 2023 8:29:17 GMT
Continuing on...
Olusoga provides two references for the presence of black people in Roman Britain.
First, he cites a ‘a number’ of skeletons from the 4th century AD which were unearthed in 1901 in York. These have subsequently been subjected to radio-isotope analysis with the result that they have been defined as ‘mixed race of North African heritage’ [p29]. These include the celebrated ‘Ivory Bangle Lady’ whose presence in York is taken as proof that not all those of African descent were of low-status or slaves.
The second example is that of the ‘Aurelian Moors’, soldiers of potentially North African descent whose presence, from the third century AD, is attested to by contemporary inscriptions near Hadrian’s Wall [p31]. There does not appear to be any physical evidence for this in the form of remains or genetic material in the local population.
I don’t think there is anything new here, both have been known about for decades and endlessly trumpeted by MultiKultists as evidence of historical black settlement in Britain.
But now we have to fast forward a thousand years to the sixteenth century and Tudor England since, as Olusoga concedes, after the fall of Rome Britain, Britons had little or no contact with Africa or Africans [p41].
Olusoga sets out his narrative in broadly chronological fashion so we will follow suit. One major departure from his storyline though will be that my focus is on Blacks in Britain and their presence in the historical record of these islands. Olusoga, on the other hand, devotes much of his attention to events that occurred outside Britain – slavery in particular, colonialism also – events that have only tangential relevance to the history of blacks in Britain itself. Consequently entire chapters and substantial parts of others will be skipped entirely.
Next: Blacks in Tudor England
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on May 4, 2023 9:02:45 GMT
We’re all men recruited into the Royal navy in the 18th century given land after they finished their terms of service or just the black ones ?🤔 I suspect he may be confusing retired sailors with Roman legionnaires who did receive a gratuity and farmland after completing their 25-year term of service. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 4, 2023 11:09:31 GMT
We’re all men recruited into the Royal navy in the 18th century given land after they finished their terms of service or just the black ones ?🤔 I suspect he may be confusing retired sailors with Roman legionnaires who did receive a gratuity and farmland after completing their 25-year term of service. You may be right. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on May 4, 2023 11:45:14 GMT
A well researched estimate of the number of Black people living in London was made in the early twentieth century. The figure was estimated to be lower than 100.
This is very hard to fit in with the claim that a mere two centuries before blacks represented a whopping 5% of the UK's population. It's nonsense imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on May 4, 2023 14:17:36 GMT
A well researched estimate of the number of Black people living in London was made in the early twentieth century. The figure was estimated to be lower than 100. This is very hard to fit in with the claim that a mere two centuries before blacks represented a whopping 5% of the UK's population. It's nonsense imo. It’s preparing the ground for an alleged Black holocaust that entails huge numbers of English black peoples carted of the the American colonies as slaves. When they were used up we nipped over to Africa for some more. |
|
|
|
Post by thescotsman on May 4, 2023 15:58:01 GMT
The title refers to the book by David Olusoga, whose Wiki entry describes him as ‘one of the Top Ten most influential Black Britons’ and cites Manchester University as describing him as an expert on military history, empire, race and slavery, and "one of the UK's foremost historians".
The book ‘Black and British: A Forgotten History’ has received almost universal praise by reviewers in the legacy media, as has the accompanying TV series. But what I want to do here is not to present a revisionist review but to use Olusoga’s book as a primary source to answer the vexed question of just what the history of blacks in Britain actually amounts to.
Olusoga states that he seeks to he seeks to "illuminate the parts of British history in which black people were active participants” [p22]. He claims that “Black people were not only continually present from the 16th century onwards [they also] played a role in many of the pivotal moments of British history” [p30-31]". Furthermore, “The black history of Britain and the biographies of black Britons run through mainstream British history” [p31]. As evidence that this rich history has been largely ignored and forgotten, he cites an African-American historian who was told by an assistant in a London bookshop that there were no blacks in Britain before 1945, and points to correspondence in the Independent complaining about ‘20th century multiculturalists [who] invent a spurious history for black settlement in Britain before the Fifies and Sixties’” [p23].
This then is the dragon that Olusoga seeks to slay and he takes almost 707 pages in attempting to do so. But does he succeed? Well we’ll see. Next: Black Britain in the Roman era.
[Note: this is an edited and updated version of an article posted on the Politics Forum UK in November 2021]
...are there any examples given....??What is his definition of "British history"
|
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on May 4, 2023 16:21:58 GMT
We’re all men recruited into the Royal navy in the 18th century given land after they finished their terms of service or just the black ones ?🤔 I suspect he may be confusing retired sailors with Roman legionnaires who did receive a gratuity and farmland after completing their 25-year term of service. Great contribution then on thread discussing history..  |
|
