JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for BASA Archives


BASA Archives

BASA Archives


BASA@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

BASA Home

BASA Home

BASA  August 2014

BASA August 2014

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: New blog post: Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the Deportation that never was

From:

Susan Bolton / Jeffrey Green <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The Black and Asian Studies Association <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sat, 30 Aug 2014 00:22:56 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (383 lines)

The 1971 "The Black Presence. A Documentary History of the Negro in England" by James Walvin (London: Orbach and Chambers) has on its back cover the Royal Proclamation of 1601 which says 'the said kind of people shall be with all speed avoided and discharged out of her majesty's realms'. which Fryer (1984) quotes (page 12) and adds 'But this second attempt to get rid of black people was no more successful than the first. From that day to this, there has been a continuous black presence in Britain'.
Fryer is not guilty, it seems: and suggestions that expulsions took place need to be proved. 

Jeff Green


========================================
Message Received: Aug 29 2014, 10:46 PM
From: "Fabian" 
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: 
Subject: Re: New blog post: Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the Deportation that never was

Thanks Miranda for this.

I think the quest for historical accuracy is very important and I welcome
your efforts for clarification.

I have started an article on wikipedia on Casper Van Senden:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casper_Van_Senden

which I shall expand.

It is important to remember that British merchants had been engaged inthe
slave trade for some time by 1596 (see Ungerer, Gustav (2008). The
Mediterranean Apprenticeship of British Slavery) even if it had yet been
adopted as a money making strategy in England.

Strategically, I am up for working on the wikipedia article, already in
the top five on a google search, using Miranda's artcile as a source. I
think this is perhaps a suitable route to getting a balanced view of this
topic?

all teh best

Fabian


On Fri, August 29, 2014 6:50 pm, Miranda Kaufmann wrote:
> Thanks Jeff-
>
>
> It wasn't even an "edict" or a "bill"- it didn't go past Parliament. It
> was merely a letter from the Privy Council- which, my friends who work on
> local government records of the time tell me, were routinely ignored in
> the localities- as this one seems to have been.
>
> And, the continuing appearance of Africans in parish registers across
> England post-1596 (e.g. these in London:
> http://www.history.ac.uk/gh/baentries.htm) most strongly demonstrates
> that there was no deportation.
>
> Miranda.
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Miranda Kaufmann
>
>
> www.mirandakaufmann.com
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> 07855 792 885
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:42 PM, Susan Bolton / Jeffrey Green <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> I don't want my republican sympathies to be praised but why does anyone
>> think that a royal edict (or an act of parliament, or school rules on
>> uniforms etc etc) has an impact on 100% of the alleged victims? Is there
>> any evidence of deportation - surely the essence of Miranda's e mail?
>> Jeff Green
>>
>>
>>
>> ========================================
>> Message Received: Aug 29 2014, 10:26 AM
>> From: "Angela Allison"
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Cc:
>> Subject: Re: New blog post: Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the
>> Deportation that never was
>>
>>
>> Huguenot refugees were arriving in 1570s - 1790s?
>> When did the Huguenots stop arriving? Why?
>>
>>
>> In 1440 Henry VI taxed all foreigners living in Exeter.
>> However, I thought that, since Edward I’s 1290 expulsion of them, Jews
>> had not been allowed to return to England until 1655?
>>
>> Angela Allison, Coventry UK
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Kathleen Chater
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:53:16 -0000 (UTC)
>> Subject: Re: New blog post: Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the
>> Deportation that never was
>>
>>
>> You have to look at the wider picture too. It wasn't just Black people
>> who were being targeted for potential expulsion. There were numerous
>> proposed edicts against Huguenots, Protestant refugees from France and
>> the Low Countries. The City of London also imposed various regulations
>> against them (and later against Jews who were even more discriminated
>> against). There was general xenophobia, resulting in (oh joy for the
>> researcher!) lists of "strangers" mainly in London but also in the
>> towns, like Maidstone, where Hugeunots had settled. There's a good
>> examination of this in an introduction to one of the Huguenot Society
>> Quarto Series Publications. It
>> might be the Returns of Strangers but if anyone really wants to follow
>> it up I can find the exact volume and extract info from it.
>>
>> Kathy
>>
>>
>>
>>> Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 08:42:16 +0000
>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: FW: New blog post: Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the
>>>
>> Deportation that never was
>>
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>> So now I need to investigate people of African origin, living in
>>>
>> England, Portugal & Spain who could read and write.
>>
>>>
>>> I also need to investigate evidence of how wide awareness of the 1596
>>>
>> bill was, even if diseminated by word-of-mouth, as oppose to reading it
>> for themselves. eg. did it make coffee-shop talk? (Coffee houses began
>> in Istanbul in 1550s and by 1650s were more common in England). Did it
>> feature in the plays of the day?, esp. the street-theatres?
>>>
>>> Brilliant. I like a challenge.
>>>
>>>
>>> Angela Allison, Coventry UK
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: msherwood
>>>
>>>
>>> Elizabeth wanted the money, I think to pay the ransom for the
>>> kidnapped
>> Brits.....
>>
>>>
>>> If the population could read, if there had been newspapers, the
>>> effect
>> of the Bill might have been similar to what Angela lists below, but as
>> they couldn’t and there weren't....
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>>
>>> From: [log in to unmask]
>>> To: The Black and Asian Studies Association
>>> Sent: Thu, 28 Aug 2014 20:58:44 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Subject: Re: FW: New blog post: Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the
>>>
>> Deportation that never was
>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> 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]]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Elizabeth I and the 'Blackamoors': the Deportation that never was
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 28/08/2014
>>>
>>>
>>> 0 Comments
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Photo 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 Guardian Black History timeline, the Medieval
>> POC
>> tumblr, and the 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 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 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 "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 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 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 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.
>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Dr. Miranda Kaufmann
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> www.mirandakaufmann.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>> 07855 792 885
>>>
>>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager