Black & Proud

November 29, 2005 7:50 PM

Niger Val Dub King of Scotland. One of 100 Great Black Britons. There were some surprises here for me. I didn't expect to find St. George the patron saint of England or Queen Victoria's grandmother here.
posted by tellurian (39 comments total)

You should have saved this for African-American History month!

Oh wait.... Black Britons. Never mind.

Very interesting snippets of history.
posted by ilsa at 8:04 PM on November 29, 2005

Weird, none of their links work for me, although the pulldown menu does. And why do they have a 'member area'?
posted by delmoi at 8:07 PM on November 29, 2005

This is Malcolm X afrocentric revisionism. I knew a guy a few years back, very decent, Muslim, dead certain that ancient Egyptians were "black". Now, race is just a social construct and all, but even the Egyptians spoke of Nubians and depicted them in their art. Middle Easterners are not "black". Given the known achievements of sub-Saharan African civilization there's no reason to bleed over and claim the civilizations of the Middle East, unless you believe that they are historically considered "white", which nobody educated believes (one hopes).

Of course St. George was one of about sixteen gazillion Levantine saints, because that was the cradle of Christianity. Similarly, because there was indeed a Portuguese bloodline brought into the royal house of Britain, and the Portuguese/Castilian royal line is unquestionably at some level ultimately with Moorish elements, which are arguably (and mathematically certain, even if unproven) descended from Muhammad, then Prince Charles is descended from Muhammad (as are a good many Westerners). But still we're talking at best "Moors", and as I understood it the term "Black" has long since been discarded when speaking of North Africans -- unless I'm unaware of a British cast on the word today. (To my knowledge, in particular, Arab immigrants to Britain self-identify as Islamic Arabs, rather than Africans or by skin color.)

I can't find a shred of evidence, though to suggest that Kenneth III of Scotland was a "Moor" in any sense of the word that, well, makes sense. When Moors and Africans are far, far away, the word black gets applied to people with farmer's tans and black hair. This is like suggesting that because Schwarzenegger means black farmer that, well, you know. Probably he was called Niger (son of) Dub because he had black hair and a blond brother -- or maybe just a scowl.
posted by dhartung at 8:29 PM on November 29, 2005

Bear in mind, though, that the word "black" is more broadly applied in Britain than in the U.S. People from the Indian subcontinent, for example, are often surprised to learn that they're not black in the U.S. A Moor might fall well with in a British definition of black, though the common assumption that Othello is a role specifically for actors of African-American descent is still pretty darn silly.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:36 PM on November 29, 2005

yup, looks like Jesus.
posted by stirfry at 8:47 PM on November 29, 2005

The Moors were dominant in Scotland in the 10th century.

Huh?

My apologies...but, I'm going to throw my lot in with the case that this site is rather revisionist. Someone have the site for the Black Irish?
posted by Atreides at 9:32 PM on November 29, 2005

dhartung, you're going to make St. Maurice cry. Please be aware that Afrocentrism is not revisionism. It is not exclusivist; that is to say, it does not discount other tellings of history. Afrocentrism is more involved in evaluating the historiography than the history itself. Case in point: the Tomb of Rameses III shows a depiction of four races: African Blacks, Egyptian Blacks (who were admittedly lighter skinned though more creole-colored than high-yellow), Europeans, and Indo-Europeans. The Nubians were indeed a separate race to the south, who for a time conquered Ancient Egypt (thereby mixing the bloodlines as well). There was mixing of the races all throughout the area (there were no such taboos then as we had until recently), but the Ancient Egyptians were undisputably African, not Arab.

George Spiggott indeed spouts truth: "George of Lydda. Born in Turkey of 'Black' Palestinian parentage." Please understand the context of the discussion before making sanctimonious proclamations. What you consider Black is not the same as it is defined on this site. And it is not an occasion to trot out your personal grudge against what you misunderstand Afrocentrism to be.
posted by Kwanzaar at 9:41 PM on November 29, 2005

Maybe they just meant he got stopped by the cops all the time.
posted by jonson at 10:35 PM on November 29, 2005

Kwanzaar, explain to me what moors there were in ancient Scotland. Besides the geographical features.

Sorry we disagree about the site, but when there's balderdash like that on it, I'm disinclined to take the rest of it seriously. This should not be construed as a "personal grudge" (whatever that is in this context) against things which are not of this site, such as serious African historiography and a more considered approach to race.

(I still don't see how the distinction between Egyptians and Arabs -- prior to the Islamic conquest, of course, it was much greater -- is obviously more significant than that between Egyptians and sub-Saharan Africans. Even allowing for ethnic gradients. We're talking about the perspective of Northern Europeans here.)

Is it still true that a Palestinian or Turk in Britain self-identifies as 'Black'?

And yes, I knew a Pakistani shopkeeper in Chicago who was as black as any African. In the US, however, even the yahoos who don't get the difference between Muslims and Sikhs know the difference between blacks and South Asians.

So what is the social purpose this site serves, inaccuracies and all? Creating a pan-ethnic bond between non-white Britons? Is that appropriate or desirable? Other than Jesse Jackson's "Rainbow Coalition", that sort of thing was pretty short-lived in the US ("people of color" undoubtedly survives, but rarely outside the campus).
posted by dhartung at 12:54 AM on November 30, 2005

George_Spiggott in England only the most abject racist would refer to Indians as black.
And the only Moors in Scotland are the type that resound to the howls of American werewolves at night.
posted by Joeforking at 1:14 AM on November 30, 2005

So what is the social purpose this site serves, inaccuracies and all? Creating a pan-ethnic bond between non-white Britons? Is that appropriate or desirable?

Why so cynical? You're not even British. The site doesn't pretend to be anything more than a celebration of some "black" heritage and achievements in Britain. Don't get hung up on the terminology, because no one else cares.

Historical and racial controversies aside, I thought it was a really interesting list, thank you for the link tellurian.
posted by londonmark at 1:34 AM on November 30, 2005

Joforeking, that was Yorkshire.
posted by londonmark at 1:38 AM on November 30, 2005

Idi Amin.
posted by sgt.serenity at 1:44 AM on November 30, 2005

This total bollocks. There were no Moors in Scotland at the time unless one or two had turned up as a tourists or merchants. Kenneth III was not King of the Picts, the dynastic lines of Picts and Scots and been unified years before him, Kenneth was King of Scots. The Gaelic adjective 'Dubh' meaning black, just means you've got black hair and dark eyes in this context. Whoever wrote this site may be proud of being black, but they should be ashamed of their ignorance and gullibility.
posted by Flitcraft at 2:54 AM on November 30, 2005

Of course, morris dancing, that most English of dances, is actually Moorish dancing.

Heard a story about the early incursions of the Scandinavians onto English soil. The were met by Nubian soldiers serving in the Roman legions and the dark-skinned Nubians said to the blond-haired, blue-eyed Scandinavians, "What are you doing here? Go on, piss off back to your own country" or words to that effect.
posted by Tarn at 2:55 AM on November 30, 2005

londonmark, yeah I know, that's what I was trying to suggest by "the type", that part of the country ( the backbone of N. England/Scotland) is pretty much one big moor.
posted by Joeforking at 3:14 AM on November 30, 2005

Sorry Joeforking. I didn't realise Scotland has moors. A quick Wikipaedia search has set me straight (turns out I didn't know what a moor was in the first place!)
posted by londonmark at 3:24 AM on November 30, 2005

George Spiggot : "Bear in mind, though, that the word "black" is more broadly applied in Britain than in the U.S. People from the Indian subcontinent, for example, are often surprised to learn that they're not black in the U.S."

What the hell are you talking about? Indians aren't black. I challenge you to find a UKer who thinks that they are.

Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis et al are normally refered to as "Indians" in polite incorrect language, "Asian" in marginally more correct language and "Pakis" by the sort of person you'd expect to find setting light to puppies. Under no circumstances is an Indian "black".

As I understand it, however, the Americans call them "Oriental", which in the UK would be predominantly Chinese.
posted by twine42 at 4:38 AM on November 30, 2005

This site kinda reminds me of Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends. Remember the one where he met the crazy black cult that tried to prove to him Shakespeare was a black man?
posted by twistedonion at 4:42 AM on November 30, 2005

I'm lost. This is my list of received vulgar collective pronouns for the non-pink.

In the UK:
Indian subcontinent - Asian
Africa/West Indies - Black
West Indies - Carribean
China/Japan/Korea/Vietnam... - Chinese (ha ha) (or, confusingly, Asian)

In the US:
Indian subcontinent - Indian
African/West Indies - Black
Far East - Asian


I don't know where the rest of you are living, but in the UK there can be quite prickly and flammable tensions between the Asian and Black communities (especially in northern and central areas of England). Expecting them to all be the same handy minority subculture is optimistic.
posted by NinjaPirate at 5:37 AM on November 30, 2005

(sorry, I just pasted in completely the wrong link for "northern". This article is what it was supposed to be, however that too was based in Birmingham rather than the north of England, so mea culpa)
posted by NinjaPirate at 5:42 AM on November 30, 2005

twine42, the word "Oriental" has long since fallen into disfavor in the U.S., but even when it was more commonly used, it referred more to people of East Asian descent. I think Indians have pretty much always been called Indians here (sometimes clarified as "India Indians, not Native American Indians").
posted by Gator at 6:04 AM on November 30, 2005

Not to mention flammable tensions between elements within the black community (West Indians vs Nigerians) and the Asian community. We just don't get along ;-)

However, I'm far more cynical about a website that hasn't been updated since August 2004, or that steals its Shirley Bassey biography straight from the BBC Wales.
posted by badlydubbedboy at 6:05 AM on November 30, 2005

That "The Moors were dominant in Scotland in the 10th century." quotation is attributed to J.A. Rogers, author of (says Amazon):

• Sex and Race: Negro-Caucasian Mixing in All Ages and All Lands : The Old World
• Sex and Race: A History of White, Negro, and Indian Miscegenation in the Two Americas : The New World
• Sex and Race Why White and Black Mix in Spite of Opposition
• 100 Amazing Facts About the Negro With Complete Proof: A Short Cut to the World History of the Negro
• Nature Knows No Color-Line: Research into the Negro Ancestry in the White Race
• Five Negro Presidents
• From Superman to Man
• Africa's Gift to America: The Afro-American in the Making and Saving of the United States : With New Supplement, Africa and Its Potentialities
• Your History: From Beginning of Time to the Present
• The Real Facts About Ethiopia (B.C.P. Pamphlet)

He was, says this page, a "prodigious and meticulous detective" who did "exhaustive, primary research into the global history of African people." That may be, but I still don't believe Scotland was ever dominated by black folk. Just go there and look around. They're pink, they're red, they're pale, they're freckled, but they aren't, by and large, anything close to black.
posted by pracowity at 6:12 AM on November 30, 2005

I found the list interesting and learned about people I hadn't known about before, so thanks, tellurian. But there were some odd inclusions, particularly St. George, who 1) wasn't British and 2) wasn't black. For Pete's sake, their first paragraph says:

St George is the Patron Saint of England and one of the most famous of Christian figures. But of the man himself, nothing is certainly known. The earliest possible source, Eusebius of Caesarea, writing around 322 AD, tells of a 'man of the greatest distinction' who was put to death under the Roman Emperor Diocletian at Nicomedia (present-day Palestine) on April 23rd, 303 AD, but makes no mention of his name, his country, his place of trial or his place of burial.

And there's nothing in the rest of the piece that even suggests that he was black. Very odd.

I also agree with dhartung about the travesty that is Afrocentrism. You're being disingenuous, Kwanzaar, when you say "Afrocentrism is not revisionism... Afrocentrism is more involved in evaluating the historiography than the history itself." I've read Afrocentric works, and they are in fact talking about history, and they are in fact revisionist; they make unsustainable claims about the history of Africa, Egypt, Greece, and the Near East in general. When you say "the Ancient Egyptians were undisputably African, not Arab," that's true in the obvious and extremely limited sense that they lived on the continent of Africa. So did/do the Afrikaners in South Africa; if you're prepared to grant them the same status as the Egyptians, fine, but if not, you're operating on false premises. Egypt has always been set apart from the rest of Africa by obvious geographical factors; they have always had contact with the Sudan to the south, and of course there has been frequent intermarriage, but to claim that Egypt is just like the rest of Africa and completely separate from the Near East would be ridiculous. I know you didn't say that, but that's the assumption behind the Afrocentric hysteria about Egypt. The Ancient Egyptians would have been deeply offended at being lumped in with people they considered their inferiors.

It is not exclusivist; that is to say, it does not discount other tellings of history.

Then it's not history, it's fantasy. Historians try to find out what happened and report it, not tell warm and fuzzy bedtime stories that make people feel better about themselves.

What I've never understood about the whole Afrocentric thing is that African history is rich in great civilizations that produced magnificent art, poetry, and unique ways of looking at the world; when you've got Ghana, Mali, and so on to take pride in, why the desperate attempts to annex Greece, Palestine, and what have you? It's as if genuine African cultures aren't good enough. Internalized colonialist thinking, perhaps?
posted by languagehat at 6:39 AM on November 30, 2005

In the US we usually refer to people from India as "Indians." Then the other person asks, "Do you mean American Indians?" And the first person says "No India-Indians."

That said, the site is amusing bullshit. Worse than the made up facts is the apparent definition of "black" as anyone with any African heritage at all. This is the infamous "one drop rule" in action--the racist belief that if you have any non-white ancestry at all, your blood is "tainted" and you are not white.
posted by LarryC at 6:53 AM on November 30, 2005

languagehat: "Then it's not history, it's fantasy. Historians try to find out what happened and report it, not tell warm and fuzzy bedtime stories that make people feel better about themselves."

Well, let's not place historians on a pedestal. What the classical historian does is more accurate than literature, but also less accurate than science. To ignore that all historical work operates within it's own system of knowledge that necessarily delegitimizes competing other systems of knowledge privileges a narrow view of history that is unable to fully account for the experiences of a collective humanity.

Yikes. I have GOT to cut out the Foucault before bed.
posted by illovich at 7:26 AM on November 30, 2005

dhartung, we risk a derail of some magnitude here, but let me clarify the perspective on the "Ownership of Egypt"—which is a subject of much debate. During the era of Trans-Atlantic Slavery, there was a movement to discredit anything African. Race-based slavery, rather than the previous general practice of enslaving anyone you didn't like, no matter their skin color, created an institutionalized racism. Nobody in Europe liked any of the other peoples in Europe, but at least they had their own national pride between their countrymen. To undermine this in African slaves, all the majesty had to be removed from Africa. For how long was Great Zimbabwe attributed to King Solomon or the Persian Queen of Sheba? Similarly, the concept of Egypt as "African" had to be subdued. As arguably the greatest and certainly the oldest civilization of the ancient world, everyone wanted to take credit for it. But Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra? I think Paul Mooney said it best: "Sometimes Hollywood goes too far." Hollywood may be irrelevant to scholars such as ourselves, but to many, that's where their conception of history derives. As in most cases, I believe the truth was somewhere in between. And that's the underlying point of Afrocentrism: the truth. It is unfortunate that sensationalist Afrocentrists have placed a distaste in your mouth. There is still a hot debate regarding the separation of the more sensational "Afrocentricity" such as preached by the progenitor of my namesake, Dr. Karenga; and the more fact-based historiographical doctrine of Afrocentrism, which is based more on removing deprecating language (the former Yugoslavia is divided into races, but Africa is divided into tribes?) and looking at African history from a more African perspective (for example, not equating prosperity with the "number of things" a society has).

The pride of African people and diasporic Africans should perhaps not be tied in with such silly things as who built the pyramids (and who helped them build their early society through trade), but it is. And not because we made it this way. Racial pride, or the lack thereof, is part of what I believe holds Blacks back in many parts of the world. In America, we have been sold "hip-hop" culture and bling, whereas in many African countries, the influence of Islam has been a sort of "Arabification" where Black Muslims themselves denigrate and obscure their own history as part of a wish to identify more strongly with an Arab (in origin) religion. True African pride should be derived from our early engineering feats just as well as our lyrical culture. Sadly, at least in America, too many young blacks see their only out as professional a) musicianship or b) sports.

And Larry: Ah, but that same rule has been for so long used against Blacks/Africans that it's no surprise some are now twisting it to their own ends. When you hear something for so long it becomes the only song you know. I'm not saying I agree with the disposition; I think it's time for new songs.
posted by Kwanzaar at 7:50 AM on November 30, 2005

Well, let's not place historians on a pedestal. What the classical historian does is more accurate than literature, but also less accurate than science.

Sure, but I didn't say they were scientists. I said they "try to find out what happened and report it": it's the attempt to amass whatever facts you can and assess them as objectively as you can that distinguishes a historian from a propagandist or a storyteller. Someone who rummages through the results of other people's research looking for anything that can be pressed into service to support a political/racial point of view is not a historian. (And yes, yes, there's no such thing as true objectivity, we all have our prejudices, blah blah. I understand the cautions of that line of thinking, but carried to an extreme it's an abdication of responsibility. We should try to be aware of our own biases and those of others; that's not the same as giving up on any idea of truth and accuracy.)

During the era of Trans-Atlantic Slavery, there was a movement to discredit anything African.

This is sadly true, and a lot of good work has been done in recent decades to document that discrediting. But that does not justify putting one's thumb on the scales in the other direction to make up for it. I'm glad you make a point of "the separation of the more sensational 'Afrocentricity'... and the more fact-based historiographical doctrine of Afrocentrism, which is based more on removing deprecating language," and I certainly support the latter (the whole "tribal" thing is really obnoxious and has real-world consequences in the indifference to mass slaughter that takes place in Africa because "it's ancient tribal hatred, there's nothing we can do), but frankly I don't recall seeing any self-proclaimed Afrocentric work that openly rejects the loony fringe elements. If you can point me to such, I'll be grateful; I always like to expand my historical horizons and take in different points of view.
posted by languagehat at 8:20 AM on November 30, 2005

Well said, Kwanzaar, and a great discussion all around.

It is absolutely true that in the age of the slave trade, a false African "history" was erected as part of the racial justification of slavery. African societies, some of which were only a few centuries behind Europe in terms of scientific advances when the slave trade began (Kwanzaar may dispute my premise here), were portrayed in the west as purely tribal affairs, and barbaric at that. All Africans were lumped together and presented as superstitious, cruel, cannibalistic, half-naked and living in the jungle. Sadly, this image of Africa persists, especially if you grew up on old Tarzan movies like I did...

On Preview: Alas, Languagehat made all my points first and better. And not for the first time, the rascal.
The corrective to this false history surely is not more false history, however. It should be enough to present the glories of African history: the universities that flourished at Timbuktu when Europe was in the Dark Ages, etc.
posted by LarryC at 8:37 AM on November 30, 2005

D'oh! Messed up the formatting.
posted by LarryC at 8:37 AM on November 30, 2005

Unfortunately for us both, languagehat, I can find few resources in a thirty-second google search on Afrocentrism vs. Afrocentricity. The terms are at present just too well-confounded. I will labor to find additional sources when I have more time; though this is far outside my realm of focus (it is likely therefore something I should review). It is a pleasure to "butt heads" with yourself and Mr. Hartung; you are both among the better read and more thoughtful MeFites. I can only hope this goes a ways towards showing people that I am not simply a troll account.

Larry, I dispute your concept of "behind." Civilization is not a race (on preview: no pun intended, I must assure you). In fact, homongeneity is often a cause of downfall. Afrocentrism is dedicated precisely to removing the European measures when evaluating African history. I don't want to get into a discussion on Dogon astronomy here, but I will mention them as they are often held up as a case (one that has not been obliterated) of African cultures reaching European achievements through non-European methods. By the old historiographic paradigm, they have consistently been examined as if there were some "trick" to their knowledge, as if they were stage magicians performing for white historians. African culture should be examined by Africans, just as European culture has been by Europeans; though not without accepting an internation perspective. The UNESCO General History of Africa (which I'm pleased to see is searchable on GooglePrint) went a long way towards establishing this paradigm. (It's indeed one of my goals to read the complete and unabridged volumes some day.)
posted by Kwanzaar at 9:19 AM on November 30, 2005

It is a pleasure to "butt heads" with you

Likewise, and thanks for sharing the news about the searchability of the UNESCO series (I have a couple of the abridged volumes) -- that's very useful.
posted by languagehat at 9:48 AM on November 30, 2005

A brand-new site? I just came across the 100 Great Black Britons yesterday for the first time, too, while following up information on the dub poet Linton Kwesi Johnson. Interestingly, they say he’s “the only living poet to be published by Penguin Classics.” Not yet King of Scotland, however.
posted by LeLiLo at 11:15 AM on November 30, 2005

Ah, but whom ended up slaves to whom? Yes, I know that some Africans knew things that were unknown in Europe, but who enslaved whom? The Europeans were able to put together science, economics, and a lucky geographic position to make the first sustained contact between the Old and New Worlds, and their ascent to global domination began. The American Indians were the first victims of the process, and the Africans were the second. Civilization (and history) may not be a race, but there are winners and losers.
posted by LarryC at 12:25 PM on November 30, 2005

the universities that flourished at Timbuktu when Europe was in the Dark Ages, etc.

Timbuktu did indeed have a glorious late medieval/early modern manuscript culture but the teaching in the courts of the great mosques flourished under the Songhay empire in the late 15th-16th century - not exactly the Dark Ages in Europe! If you're interested in it, and in the issues of Arabic/African culture, there's a BBC Radio 3 programme on its fascinating history and written culture available on 'Listen Again' til this coming Sunday: Timbuktu, Centre of the World (click 'listen to the latest programme', there's a minute or two of the previous programme before it starts)
posted by Flitcraft at 4:00 PM on November 30, 2005

Flitcraft: I'm listening to it now, and loving it. Thanks!
posted by LarryC at 6:03 PM on November 30, 2005

Me too Flitcraft. Thank you all for your great comments and links (not you jonson).
posted by tellurian at 6:14 PM on November 30, 2005

I'm sorry that I didn't think to look back at this post sooner, as I doubt you'll see my reply, Larry.

I have a problem with your metric. Urkel could walk up to you on the street and sucker punch you. You wouldn't be able to do anything about it; that's the definition of a sucker punch. It comes from nowhere, unprovoked and unasked. The concept of "might makes right" is just another reason to reject European mentality.
posted by Kwanzaar at 10:00 AM on December 9, 2005