|
Between 1596 and the 1601 redraft, how many 'masters' would Van Senden have approached in a bid to fulfill his licence?
Were these 'masters' sworn to secrecy? or would word have circulated about the licence Van Senden had been issued with?
Angela Allison, Coventry UK
----- Original Message -----
From: Miranda Kaufmann <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 15:39:22 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: FW: New blog post: Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the Deportation that never was
Dear Angela,
Thank you for reading my blog, and engaging with it. Please do also read
the longer article I wrote on the subject, which will give you more detail
and context: http://www.mirandakaufmann.com/caspanvansenden.html An earlier
version of this article in fact appeared in the BASA Newsletter, no. 45
(2006), pp.10-14.
I wasn't trying to "justify" anyone's actions, rather to understand them in
the context of the time. This is why I read through the State Papers, and
Cecil's private papers, looking at other references to Van Senden, and
indeed to Edward Baynes and another man, by the name of Porter. You will
find more details of what I found in the longer article, linked above.
In fact, Elizabeth I rarely attended Privy Council meetings, so is unlikely
to have been involved in any discussion on this matter. And I'm not at all
sure she did sign the letter. (Though this is something I'd like to check).
One of the key points I was trying to put across is that the politics of
Elizabethan England were far removed from those of the 20th Century that
you refer to. In fact, I think that the documents of 1596 and 1601 were
most likely drafted by Van Senden and Sherley, his sponsor, and reflective
of ideas about Africans that Van Senden had picked up from his time in
Lisbon, rather than general ideas prevalent in England. For example, he
writes that Africans were heathens, but there is ample evidence of Africans
being baptised in parishes across England at this time.
Further, I think the fact that their "masters" refused to part with their
African servants suggests they did not share Van Senden's ideas.
Dr. Miranda Kaufmann
www.mirandakaufmann.com
[log in to unmask]
07855 792 885
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Angela Allison <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I'm amazed that anyone would seek to justify the actions of QE1 with
> regard to Senden.
>
> Did QE1 authorise the 1596 bill by signing it? Yes
> Had she authorised similar removals a week earlier by an Edward Baynes? Yes
>
> Even though the Senden's bill proved to be void, and just a delaying
> tactic, what impact would it have had on hearts & minds of all those who
> were aware of it (both black & white), the fact that the country's ruler
> (not just some drunken lout at the local pub) had been prepared to but her
> name to such a thing?
>
> Might it not have been similar in impact to the Tory election posters of
> the 1964, stating 'If you want a nigger next door, vote Labour?
> Might it not have been similar in impact to Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of
> Blood' speech of 1968 - just weeks after the assassination of MLK?
> Might it not have been similar in impact to Maggie Thatcher's
> anti-immigrants speeches, esp. when she used emotive words such a 'flooded'
> & 'swamped'?
> Might it not have been similar in impact to David Cameron's recent
> anti-immigrants vans/posters?
>
>
> Angela Allison, Coventry UK
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: msherwood <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:29:20 -0000 (UTC)
> Subject: FW: New blog post: Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the
> Deportation that never was
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Miranda Kaufmann [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <
> http://www.mirandakaufmann.com/blog/elizabeth-i-and-the-blackamoors-the-deportation-that-never-was>
> Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the Deportation that never was
>
>
> 28/08/2014
>
> <
> http://www.mirandakaufmann.com/blog/elizabeth-i-and-the-blackamoors-the-deportation-that-never-was#comments>
> 0 Comments
>
>
>
> Photo <
> http://www.mirandakaufmann.com/uploads/1/2/2/5/12258270/1409238365.jpg>
> from the Guardian Black History Timeline
>
> Today I am compelled to blog. There is a wrong I must right. The world
> simply cannot be allowed to continue to believe that Elizabeth I expelled
> Africans from her realm in 1596.
>
> This is perhaps the most oft-quoted (sometimes the only quoted) "fact"
> relating to the history of Africans in Tudor England. Recently, I have seen
> it repeated in the <
> http://www.theguardian.com/uk/interactive/2008/oct/13/black-history-month-timeline>
> Guardian Black History timeline, the <
> http://medievalpoc.tumblr.com/post/83752601013/im-writing-a-paper-about-the-internalized-racism-in>
> Medieval POC tumblr, and the <
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/travel/londons-legacy-in-the-slave-trade.html?_r=0>
> New York Times.
>
> It has also been peddled by historians, including the wonderful Peter
> Fryer, who wrote in his magisterial Staying Power in 1984: “The queen was
> soon expressing strong disapproval of the presence of black people…in the
> realm and indeed, ordering that ‘those kinde of people’ should be deported
> forthwith.” While Ania Loomba went so far as to assert in 1992 that
> “Elizabeth I's communique deporting blacks... [indicates that] the
> 'preservation' of the white race is seen to be at stake.”
>
> It's a prime example of how anything can become "fact" through repetition.
> and it is a particularly dangerous story to peddle in our immigration-
> obsessed times. It is all too easy to elide the centuries and imagine that
> Elizabeth I had an immigration policy that would have been approved of by
> Enoch Powell.
>
> The "fact" has made its way into the classroom. In 2009 year 7 pupils at
> St John Plessington Catholic College in the Wirral were to be taught: “To
> understand the reasons for Elizabeth I’s policy of expulsion”, while the <
> http://www.blackhistory4schools.com/tudors/> BlackHistory4Schools website
> has a lesson plan which explicitly compares the Tudor rhetoric with modern
> newspaper headlines.
>
> What makes this all worse, on a personal level, is that I wrote <
> http://www.mirandakaufmann.com/caspanvansenden.html> an article
> disproving this so-called "fact" some seven years ago. Clearly, academic
> articles are not as widely read as academics might like. And looking back,
> I can see it is a bit dense. Maybe <
> http://www.mirandakaufmann.com/caspanvansenden.html> "Caspar van Senden,
> Sir Thomas Sherley and the ‘Blackamoor’ Project" wasn't the most catchy
> title?
>
> Anyway, now I'm taking to my blog to explain the truth behind the myth
> once and for all, in plain terms (but still with some original quotes!).
>
> So, What really happened?
>
> Well, on 18 July 1596, the Privy Council issued an <
> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/early_times/transcripts/privy_van_senden.htm>
> open letter addressed “to the Lord Mayor of London and to all
> vice-admirals, Mayors and other public officers whatsoever to whom it may
> appertain.” The letter authorised a merchant of Lubeck named Caspar Van
> Senden to “take up…Blackamoores here in this Realm and to transport them
> into Spain and Portugal.”
>
> Crucially this required the "consent of their masters.” It was this
> requirement that made this a dead letter, as I learnt from reading the
> various petitions from a disappointed Van Senden amongst Robert Cecil’s
> papers. In an undated petition to the Queen, Van Senden asks for a far more
> powerful authorisation to take Africans out of the country, without the
> "interruption of their masters or any other persons." He complains that the
> 1596 Council warrant was not effective as he:
>
> "together with a Pursivant [basically an enforcer] did travell at his
> great Charges into dyvers partes of your highness Realme for the said
> Blackamoores, But the masters of them, perceiving by the said warrant that
> your orator could not take the Blackamoores without the Master’s good will,
> would not suffer your Orator to have any one of them."
>
> Van Senden did not get what he wanted. Another <
> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/blackhistory/early_times/transcripts/deportation_van_senden.htm>
> document of 1601 has been quoted as a second Privy Council letter or
> proclamation, but in fact it was never promulgated, and only exists as a
> draft amongst Cecil’s papers. It might have been drafted by Van Senden
> himself, as it is more strongly worded that the 1596 letter.
>
> Ultimately Van Senden's schemes were unsuccessful. This was not a
> deportation, but rather a small-scale bargain with a persistent merchant,
> on an individual basis.
>
> Elizabeth I did not expel Africans from England. In fact, Africans, who
> had been present in both England and Scotland from the earliest years of
> the sixteenth century, continued to live here for the rest of her reign,
> and beyond. I have found <http://www.mirandakaufmann.com/thesis.html>
> evidence of over 360 African individuals living in these isles between 1500
> and 1640. We no longer need to rely on the 1596 document to make the point
> that there were Africans in Tudor England.
>
As the letter was only sent to local government officials, it seems
unlikely to me that its contents were more widely known. I would however,
be fascinated if you did find reference to it in some other source.
Re: the expulsion of the Jews- this is a very interesting point of
comparison. As I put it in my longer article:
"it was of an entirely different nature. While in 1290 Edward’s government
made a tidy profit by collecting the Jews’ debts on their behalf and
selling their houses, no one managed to make much money in 1596-1601.
Edward’s edict had banished all Jews, giving them safe conduct on the
condition they left the country by a certain date. Elizabeth had no such
universal intention, merely making a local bargain with a persistent
merchant, on an individual basis. "
- As you rightly point out, there shouldn't officially have been any Jews
in England 1290-1655. However, in reality, they did come, but had to hide
their religion. For example, in Elizabeth's reign, there were Jews who had
fled from persecution in Portugal living in London- some of whom had
African servants.
Please do have a look round my website www.mirandakaufmann.com for more
information on my research into Africans living in Tudor & Stuart Britain,
and send me any further questions!
Best wishes,
Miranda.
_____
>
>
>
> Dr. Miranda Kaufmann
>
>
>
> www.mirandakaufmann.com
>
>
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> 07855 792 885
>
|
