Hi Miranda,
Whilst I agree that starting or reducing the the history of Africans in
Britain to slavery and/or the slave trade is problematic, I don't feel
your article really helps when it comes to your questions about how, when
and why racism emerged.
Your article doesn't really grasp Britain was caught up in religious
conflict at the time, and that this - rather than "race" which was a
social construct which had not really been created at the time - was the
significant social issue.
Underlying your article is the way in which these Africans had shed their
indigenous culture and become Christian . . . indeed, I would imagine,
protestants.
In fact it was precisely during this period that English capitalists -
particularly those associated with the London Virginia Company - developed
the mechanisms which facilitated chattel slavery becoming the economic
corner stone of the British Empire.
I have covered Sir Edward Coke's role in laying the legal grounding of
slavery in "1606 and all that: The Virginian Conquest":
"The origins of the First Anglo-Powhatan war are thus located in an act of
institutional racism, rooted in religious bigotry acted out in an English
court, rather than in some unfortunate inability of the Virginia invaders
to `get on' with the Native Americans."
(those interested can find the full text at:
http://www.academia.edu/733691/1606_and_all_that_The_Virginian_Conquest)
As I say later:
"Racism was not and is not a `natural' attitude. It has its genesis in a
process whereby the religious bigotry of Elizabethan England was converted
into Anglo-American racism. The Virginia invaders provided the social
crucible for this transformation. But this was not an accidental
transformation: it was consciously espoused and institutionalised by the
businessmen who ran the London Virginia Company. Originally it had been
hoped to enslave the Native Americans. When this proved impossible,
attempts to reduce European indentured servants to the state of perpetual
slaves created problems in London. However, Coke's dictum that `All
infidels are in law perpetui inimici , perpetual enemies' created a legal
premise for the transformation of African indentured servitude into
perpetual slavery."
I feel that your research in many ways corroborates this viewpoint. I
would appreciate your comments.
Fabian Tompsett
> Thanks for the defence Michael!
>
> Arthur- I never intended to belittle or detract from the experiences in
> the
> 20th century, or indeed in many of the centuries since the period I
> discussed.
>
> I only wanted to point out that my research told a different story- and
> one
> that not everyone has heard. There's a tendency to start the history of
> Africans in Britain with the slave trade. This gives subsequent racism an
> air of inevitability. If however, Africans were not always slaves, we have
> to ask different questions about how, when and why racism emerged.
>
> I'm happy to discuss this further with anyone!
>
> Best,
>
> Miranda.
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM, arthur torrington <
>
[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>
>> I am concerned not about the research, but the final paragraph of
>> the Guardian article and its conclusions.
>>
>> Parhaps, you have not noted my point.
>>
>> arthur
>> ------------------------------
>> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:46:59 +0100
>> From:
[log in to unmask]
>>
>> Subject: Re: My article on Guardian website today: Slavery shouldn't
>> distort the story of black people in Britain
>> To:
[log in to unmask]
>>
>> Hi Arthur
>>
>>
>> The article is does not generalise about the past 500 years, it makes
>> some claims as to what happened to some Black people 500 years ago. It
>> does not talk of a multicultural or multi ethnic society. It argues its
>> case based on research of blacks lived lives at that time as revealed by
>> the archives.
>>
>>
>> Further it concludes that we should not let the shadow of the chattel
>> slavery of later centuries distort of our view of this period of
>> history.
>>
>>
>> So, I believe rather than have any concerns or hesitations we should
>> embrace this refreshing piece of research.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> On 18 October 2012 08:46, arthur torrington
>> <
[log in to unmask]>wrote:
>>
>>
>> Having read Miranda's article, it was the last paragraphs that concerns
>>
>> *The lives of the free black men and women living in this country 500
>> years ago tell a far more positive story than is usually told. Their
>> contribution to British history was not merely as victims of white
>> slave-traders. If we are to counter modern-day prejudice and inequality
>> it's important that this contribution is understood and respected by all
>> British people, both black and white. We must not allow the spectre of
>> the
>> transatlantic slave trade to warp our view of black British history.*
>>
>> The article did not give a view of the numbers of Africans as compared
>> with the total British population but it contained selected stories. So
>> we should not be overwhelmed with the idea that Britain was a
>> multicultural
>> society. No. The society then was obviously multi-ethnic, with other
>> peoples from Asia, Europe, et al. ****
>>
>> We must therefore hesitate to generalise about the past 500 years. Each
>> century has its own ups and down. For example, my reading of the
>> experiences, overall, of black people in 20th century Britain is not
>> pleasant. Their contributions were never commensurate with the ways in
>> which they had been treated. I am of this opinion more so, having
>> spoken
>> with many African Caribbean men and women in London over the age of 80.
>> Those
>> who served in WWII have told me horrific stories about when they
>> returned
>> to settle in Britain. When one considers how their compatriots back in
>> the
>> Caribbean were treated by the British there, and how British parliament
>> allowed it, we should not think that that was not British history also.
>> **
>> **
>>
>> arthur ****
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 17:14:16 +0200
>> From:
[log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: My article on Guardian website today: Slavery shouldn't
>> distort the story of black people in Britain
>> To:
[log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>> Nicely done Miranda. You delicately took the public into the depths of
>> the
>> archives and back again - and judging by the positive comments, they
>> enjoyed the journey. It seems they even want more in the form of a
>> book!
>>
>> A positive intervention and one to be pleased with.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Temi
>>
>> On 17 Oct 2012, at 16:36, Miranda Kaufmann wrote:
>>
>> Dear All,
>>
>> My article giving a 16th century perspective on Black History Month is
>> now
>> online here:
>>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/17/slavery-black-history-month
>>
>> Let me know what you think!
>>
>> Miranda.
>>
>>
>> Slavery shouldn't distort the story of black people in Britain
>> Black History Month should address the fact that many assume Africans in
>> 16th- and 17th-century England were slaves
>>
>> October
>> 2012 14.08 BST
>> [image: Sir John Hawkins]
>> In the same year as the final voyage of slave trader Sir John Hawkins
>> (above), an English court resolved that England had 'too pure an air for
>> slaves to breathe in'. Photograph: North Wind Picture Archives /
>> Al/Alamy
>>
>> When I tell people I study Africans in Renaissance Britain, they often
>> reply: "Oh, you mean slaves?" Despite the fact that Black History Month
>> –
>> currently being celebrated – is now in its 25th year, and that it's more
>> than 60 years since the
>> Windrush<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Empire_Windrush> brought
>> T: *+44(0)7957 234 543*
>> Skype: *temio9*
>> W: *www.theimageofblack.com*
>> B: *http://www.temiodumosu.com/*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Michael Ohajuru <http://Http://about.me/michaelohajuru>
