A new film set in the 18th century demolishes the myth about black people arriving in Britain in the 50s, with the Windrush

More important than its cinematic merits, the movie Belle, which opens in the UK this week, contradicts the persistent belief that the black presence in Britain began with the Windrush generation in the 1950s. A lush and touching period piece set in 18th-century London, the film stars Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Dido Elizabeth Belle, a young mixed-race girl and the ward of the most prominent legal figure in Britain at the time, Lord Mansfield. She is believed to have influenced some of the most crucial legal judgments of the Georgian era. But in the 18th century black people were not an unusual sight; indeed it was estimated that there were more than 15,000 in London alone, a proportion almost equal to that of today.

The sugar and slave trade were the most lucrative industries in the empire and inevitably involved the movements of thousands of black people back and forth between Britain and its colonies. Thus the British navy was replete with black sailors – some of whom fought alongside Nelson as he vanquished Napoleon – and soldiers fought in the king's army. Black personalities were also evident on the stage and in paintings, as well as on the streets, where they worked as peddlers and prostitutes, chairmen and footpads.

Above all else, as Belle demonstrates, they were in the homes of the wealthy and privileged. Indeed, possessing a black page, who represented the wealth and exotica of the Indies, was the height of fashion. Hence the dilemma of the Duchess of Devonshire who, having been given such a gift, discovered that her husband didn't relish the idea of having his wife permanently accompanied by a black boy nearing adolescence. She wrote this desperate letter to her mother: "He is 11 years old and very honest … I cannot bear the poor wretch being ill-used; if you like him … I will send him, he will be a cheap servant and you will make a Christian of him and a good boy; if you don't like him they say Lady Rockingham wants one."

That many black people living in London were, as the duchess implies, "things", slaves who did not have full agency over their lives, is evident in the two pivotal cases presided over by Mansfield. The first of these was in 1772, of the slave James Somerset, who was rescued by the abolitionist Granville Sharp from his vengeful master, who had planned to sell him back into plantation slavery. It was a crucial issue because of how much money the enslaved population represented, both in Britain and in the colonies. Freeing the slaves resident in England would have meant relinquishing thousands of pounds' worth of property. So it was no wonder that planters and merchants became anxious when rumours circulated that the judge was enthralled by his black niece. When Mansfield eventually ruled in favour of Somerset, many felt their misgivings were justified.

Even though Mansfield's intention was specifically to make it unlawful for the slave to be transported abroad and back into chattel slavery, Somerset's supporters were jubilant as they interpreted it as meaning slavery was illegal on English soil. (The ambiguity of the slaves' status remained, however, explaining why Mansfield created a legal document that explicitly stated Dido was a free subject.)

Mansfield also oversaw the even more infamous Zong case in 1781, in which more than 130 living slaves were pitched off a ship on the Atlantic passage in order to collect the insurance money. The sheer venality and inhumanity of the slave traders so disgusted the public that it would eventually help to ignite the abolition movement.

If the history of Britain were made into a movie, black people would be in virtually every scene. From Roman times to the Tudor court, from the Georgian era to the present day, we remain a constant presence. It is time to stop airbrushing us out of British history and acknowledge our long and rich contribution to this country.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/12/belle-shows-that-cinema-catching-up-with-black-history

...quick, gather BA, smelly, Nicko, Tommy, Drinky, Tess and co around the big screen to dispel there claims that immigration is so new and all the fault of Labour!!!

Why thefuck do some people keep lumping me in with others who complain about black people? jd your a fcuking idiot,all ways jumping on the racist idology . that prat lurker is another one.you'v made me lose my temper now. I rarely swear on here,but I'm sick of this. Because i'v got a different opinion to some others I'm made out to be right wing scum. FUCK off the lot of you.

nicko wrote:Why thefuck do some people keep lumping me in with others who complain about black people? jd your a fcuking idiot,all ways jumping on the racist idology . that prat lurker is another one.you'v made me lose my temper now. I rarely swear on here,but I'm sick of this. Because i'v got a different opinion to some others  I'm made out to be right wing scum. FUCK off the lot of you.

 ::smthg:: 

Calm down Nicko!

I know your a bit more tolerable than others, but sometimes you do fly wi the craws...

And you know what happens to those who sometimes fly wi the craws dontcha mate?!!  

Oh FFS, yet another thread which has turned into another excuse to bleat on about the "right wing".

Joy Division wrote:...quick, gather BA, smelly, Nicko, Tommy, Drinky, Tess and co around the big screen to dispel there claims that immigration is so new and all the fault of Labour!!!

Good morning saddo - I knew all about the black pages and servants - most people with half a brain and a smattering of education (unlikely nowadays) knows that! It's all a matter of perspective though. These black servants were only owned by the wealthy landed gentry, very few in number, so even though they were here they weren't part of mainstream society! I know when I was a kid there were hardly any blacks - I remember when my parents brought a friend round who was an American Indian the kids thought I was very exotic to know such strange people... as for Africans, well, they were simply unheard of - and I was brought up in Chelsea, hardly a rural outpost!

Only a few I think is very fitting here.....

Looks interesting and I'll put that down as a 'must see'.

Tesstacious wrote:

Joy Division wrote:...quick, gather BA, smelly, Nicko, Tommy, Drinky, Tess and co around the big screen to dispel there claims that immigration is so new and all the fault of Labour!!!

Good morning saddo -  I knew all about the black pages and servants - most people with half a brain and a smattering of education (unlikely nowadays) knows that!  It's all a matter of perspective though.  These black servants were only owned by the wealthy landed gentry, very few in number, so even though they were here they weren't part of mainstream society!  I know when I was a kid there were hardly any blacks - I remember when my parents brought a friend round who was an American Indian the kids thought I was very exotic to know such strange people... as for Africans, well, they were simply unheard of - and I was brought up in Chelsea, hardly a rural outpost!

Hi Tess.  The point of the OP was not that black pages were around, as there would not have been many of them, but 'Thus the British navy was replete with black sailors – some of whom fought alongside Nelson as he vanquished Napoleon – and soldiers fought in the king's army. Black personalities were also evident on the stage and in paintings, as well as on the streets, where they worked as peddlers and prostitutes, chairmen and footpads'. And 'But in the 18th century black people were not an unusual sight; indeed it was estimated that there were more than 15,000 in London alone, a proportion almost equal to that of today.'

BTW, you should have come to Wandsworth, there were loads.

Now there's millions.....



How very progressive.....

This doesn't surprise me.

Most films and TV programmes set in the past have black people in the most ridiculous roles (ones they just would not be in in reality) now.

Which, as already pointed out, is in direct proportion to the number that were here then.

BigAndy9 wrote:This doesn't surprise me.

Most films and TV programmes set in the past have black people in the most ridiculous roles (ones they just would not be in in reality) now.

Oh dear, that's a bit of a clanger, this film is based on actual people that lived and is factual.

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:This doesn't surprise me.

Most films and TV programmes set in the past have black people in the most ridiculous roles (ones they just would not be in in reality) now.

Oh dear, that's a bit of a clanger, this film is based on actual people that lived and is factual.

Yes i can read Sassy.

Yes I'm sure all 15,000 of them are factually depicted in This film.....
And your maths is terrible Sassy.
What was the population of London in say...1750...????

BigAndy9 wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Oh dear, that's a bit of a clanger, this film is based on actual people that lived and is factual.

Yes i can read Sassy.

You read it and still wrote that. Kinda makes it ever more stupid.

Sassy wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:


Yes i can read Sassy.

You read it and still wrote that.   Kinda makes it ever more stupid.

What i wrote is fact, is it not?


Are we seeing minorities of all kinds put in roles where they just wouldn't be?

How many people in London in 1750 Sassy?

Tommy Monk wrote:How many people in London in 1750 Sassy?

Around the 1750s, London became the home of many Blacks, as well as Jews, Irish, Germans and Huguenots. According to Gretchen Gerzina in her Black London, by the mid-18th century, Blacks comprised somewhere between one and three percent of the London populace.[34][35] Evidence of the number of Black residents in the city has been found through registered burials. The whites of London held widespread views that Black people in London were less than human; these views were expressed in slave sale advertisements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_British#17th_and_18th_centuries

How many people in London in 1750 Sassy?

Tommy Monk wrote:How many people in London in 1750 Sassy?

I already answered the question for her, but if you want actual numbers, it was probably 700 to 2,000 people.

Sorry Ben, what are you talking about?


You are saying that the total population of London in 1750 was between 700 and 2,000...???




I'm asking Sassy as she first claimed that there were 15,000 black people in London in The 18th century, and secondly claimed that the proportion of blacks per capita was the same then as it is now.




So Sassy, what was the population of London in around say 1750...???



And what evidence do you have that there were 15,000 blacks in London then too..???

Tommy Monk wrote:Sorry Ben, what are you talking about?


You are saying that the total population of London in 1750 was between 700 and 2,000...???




I'm asking Sassy as she first claimed that there were 15,000 black people in London in The 18th century, and secondly claimed that the proportion of blacks per capita was the same then as it is now.




So Sassy, what was the population of London in around say 1750...???



And what evidence do you have that there were 15,000 blacks in London then too..???

First paragraph of the first post:

More important than its cinematic merits, the movie Belle, which opens in the UK this week, contradicts the persistent belief that the black presence in Britain began with the Windrush generation in the 1950s. A lush and touching period piece set in 18th-century London, the film stars Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Dido Elizabeth Belle, a young mixed-race girl and the ward of the most prominent legal figure in Britain at the time, Lord Mansfield. She is believed to have influenced some of the most crucial legal judgments of the Georgian era. But in the 18th century black people were not an unusual sight; indeed it was estimated that there were more than 15,000 in London alone, a proportion almost equal to that of today.

"...in the 18th century black people were not an unusual sight; indeed it was estimated that there were more than 15,000 in London alone, a proportion almost equal to that of today..."



Seems some want to rewrite history here.......

Is it a film or a documentary?

Tommy Monk wrote:"...in the 18th century black people were not an unusual sight; indeed it was estimated that there were more than 15,000 in London alone, a proportion almost equal to that of today..."



Seems some want to rewrite history here.......

Around the 1750s London became the home of many of Blacks, Jews, Irish, Germans, and Huguenots. The number of Blacks in London reached between 10,000 to 15,000 during the 1760s.  Evidence of the number of black residents in London has been found through registered burials. The whites of London had widespread views that Black people in London were less than human; these views were expressed in slave sale advertisements. Some black people in London resisted through escape. Leading black activists of this era included Olaudah Equiano, Ignatius Sancho and Quobna Ottobah Cugoano.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrival_of_black_immigrants_in_London

By 1715 the population of London had reached around 630,000; rising to approximately 740,000 by 1760. Population growth in this period was not, however, evenly spread. Steady growth up to around 1725 was followed by a period of relative stagnation to mid-century, followed in turn by stronger growth during the 1750s. Poor hygiene, living conditions and the "gin craze" are frequently cited as explanations for the high mortality rate, and demographers have in particular pointed to the extremely high rate among infants (20.2 deaths per 100 live births by the age of 2 years in the period 1730-9).

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/Population-history-of-london.jsp#a1715-1760

You could have found it yourself very easily, I presume you know how to research?

Summers wrote:Is it a film or a documentary?

It's a film based on a factual documented happening.

So in 1750 there was about 700,000 people in London....


Ok....


And how many blacks did you say???


15,000???


Evidence please???

Sassy wrote:

Summers wrote:Is it a film or a documentary?

It's a film based on a factual documented happening.

So it's a movie about a fictional story?

Summers wrote:

Sassy wrote:

It's a film based on a factual documented happening.

So it's a movie about a fictional story?

No, it's a movie about a true documented happening.

Sassy wrote:

Summers wrote:

So it's a movie about a fictional story?

No, it's a movie about a true documented happening.

So is it a documentary or is it a story?

Tommy Monk wrote:So in 1750 there was about 700,000 people in London....


Ok....


And how many blacks did you say???


15,000???


Evidence please???

Ok, you obviously need assistance reading, is it a mental problem?

Evidence of the number of black residents in London has been found through registered burials

Summers wrote:

Sassy wrote:

No, it's a movie about a true documented happening.

So is it a documentary or is it a story?

Read the write up again.

A lush and touching period piece set in 18th-century London, the film stars Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Dido Elizabeth Belle, a young mixed-race girl and the ward of the most prominent legal figure in Britain at the time, Lord Mansfield.

Aren't you a bit too old now for spoon feeding?

Sassy wrote:

Summers wrote:

So is it a documentary or is it a story?

Read the write up again.

A lush and touching period piece set in 18th-century London, the film stars Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Dido Elizabeth Belle, a young mixed-race girl and the ward of the most prominent legal figure in Britain at the time, Lord Mansfield.

Aren't you a bit too old now for spoon feeding?

So it's a fictional story set in an historical setting?

Summers wrote:

Sassy wrote:

Read the write up again.

A lush and touching period piece set in 18th-century London, the film stars Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Dido Elizabeth Belle, a young mixed-race girl and the ward of the most prominent legal figure in Britain at the time, Lord Mansfield.

Aren't you a bit too old now for spoon feeding?

So it's a fictional story set in an historical setting?

OFGS Stop being an annoying little brat

Its a true story, set at the correct time, told about factual things that happened and were documented, made into a film. Surely even you can understand that!

Sassy wrote:

Summers wrote:

So it's a fictional story set in an historical setting?

OFGS Stop being an annoying little brat

Its a true story, set at the correct time, told about factual things that happened and were documented, made into a film.   Surely even you can understand that!

A true story that was inspired by a painting?

I'm not saying the woman didn't exist or anything it's just that the movie itself is completely fictional.

An elegantly rendered costume drama that opened Friday, Belle tells a true story only lately becoming better known in Britain and remarkable in its details: An illegitimate biracial child, Dido Elizabeth Belle, born to a British admiral and a former slave he loved, is brought up as an orphaned, beloved member of her father's aristocratic family in 1770s Jane Austen-era England. She is so beloved she is painted as an equal with her white sister/cousin, in marked contrast to the usual subservient poses of black people in paintings of the era.

The movie shows how Dido's close relationship with the great-uncle who raised her, William Murray, first Earl of Mansfield and the Lord Chief Justice of Britain, influences his rulings that later led to the end of slavery in the British Empire.

Yeah, it's based on a true story.

Sassy wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:So in 1750 there was about 700,000 people in London....
Ok....
And how many blacks did you say???
15,000???
Evidence please???

Ok, you obviously need assistance reading, is it a mental problem?
Evidence of the number of black residents in London has been found through registered burials

So are you claiming that the general population of blacks in London was 15,000 in around 1750 or that there were around 15,000 recorded black people buried in total by 1750????




Evidence please?

Sassy...????


Why are you running away????


I haven't finished yet!!!!

I see you are running away here Sassy so I will just continue anyway......
You claimed there were about15,000 blacks in population of London throughout the 18th century, and that they were theyw same proportion of population as they are now....


Firstly I think your figure is vastly over exaggerated, there probably wasn't even a third of that let alone 15,000.


But, anyway, let's see how this figure compares to todays numbers and percentage of London population.....


In 1750 there were around 700,000 people in whole of London. Today there are ten times that figure.....


About 7,000,000.......


So let's multiply your 15,000 by ten as well which equals....
150,000


Which is The number of blacks in London for your statement to be true.


But hold on a minute....... how many blacks ARE in London today....????


Anyone...????


I'll tell you..... these's about ten times that number at about 1.5 million!!!!!!!


And if we use the more realistic figure for 1750 being probably nearer 5,000..... then today there is about thirty times that number in London today.


So what the fuck are you talking about saying they were the same proportion then as they are now....????



Either you are deliberately lying and being misleading or you are just incredibly shit at maths!!!



Which is it...????

Tommy Monk wrote:I see you are running away here Sassy so I will just continue anyway......
You claimed there were about15,000 blacks in population of London throughout the 18th century, and that they were theyw same proportion of population as they are now....


Firstly I think your figure is vastly over exaggerated, there probably wasn't even a third of that let alone 15,000.


But, anyway, let's see how this figure compares to todays numbers and percentage of London population.....


In 1750 there were around 700,000 people in whole of London. Today there are ten times that figure.....


About 7,000,000.......


So let's multiply your 15,000 by ten as well which equals....
150,000


Which is The number of blacks in London for your statement to be true.


But hold on a minute....... how many blacks ARE in London today....????


Anyone...????


I'll tell you..... these's about ten times that number at about 1.5 million!!!!!!!


And if we use the more realistic figure for 1750 being probably nearer 5,000..... then today there is about thirty times that number in London today.


So what the fuck are you talking about saying they were the same proportion then as they are now....????



Either you are deliberately lying and being misleading or you are just incredibly shit at maths!!!



Which is it...????

The information you were given came from a source that was in a published article. If you believe that the information is wrong then your beef isn't with Sassy - it's with the source itself. It's like shooting the messenger.
And you really haven't said whether you believe the figures to be true or false so just for the record can you say so now?

Tommy doesn't seem to realise that burial records don't just say who is buried there, they say when they were buried, where they lived etc, so they can work out from that who was living where when they died and how many in each year.

Sassy wrote:Tommy doesn't seem to realise that burial records don't just say who is buried there, they say when they were buried, where they lived etc, so they can work out from that who was living where when they died and how many in each year.

There's a lot Tommy doesn't realise right enough. He obviously didn't notice that you were actually quoting from a published article

Yep, but then Tommy will say even a published article is waffle if he doesn't agree with it    

Irn Bru wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I see you are running away here Sassy so I will just continue anyway......
You claimed there were about15,000 blacks in population of London throughout the 18th century, and that they were theyw same proportion of population as they are now....


Firstly I think your figure is vastly over exaggerated, there probably wasn't even a third of that let alone 15,000.


But, anyway, let's see how this figure compares to todays numbers and percentage of London population.....


In 1750 there were around 700,000 people in whole of London. Today there are ten times that figure.....


About 7,000,000.......


So let's multiply your 15,000 by ten as well which equals....
150,000


Which is The number of blacks in London for your statement to be true.


But hold on a minute....... how many blacks ARE in London today....????


Anyone...????


I'll tell you..... these's about ten times that number at about 1.5 million!!!!!!!


And if we use the more realistic figure for 1750 being probably nearer 5,000..... then today there is about thirty times that number in London today.


So what the fuck are you talking about saying they were the same proportion then as they are now....????



Either you are deliberately lying and being misleading or you are just incredibly shit at maths!!!



Which is it...????

The information you were given came from a source that was in a published article. If you believe that the information is wrong then your beef isn't with Sassy - it's with the source itself. It's like shooting the messenger.
And you really haven't said whether you believe the figures to be true or false so just for the record can you say so now?

That's a load of shit.
I personally don't give a shit about what year Africans arrived in the United Kingdom or anything like that but she clearly agrees with the article so it's absolutely not even in the realm of "shooting the messenger"
It's like saying you can't give someone who's anti-vaccine shit for posting some psuedo-science anti-vaccine study.

Sassy wrote:Yep, but then Tommy will say even a published article is waffle if he doesn't agree with it    

Same way someone who agrees with a published article will praise it as fact.
Something getting published does not make it fact.

Especially shit that is published in a fucking newspaper.
Newspapers are not exactly bastions of fucking objectivity and science.

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

After a really good laugh like that, off to watch the match.

The information Tommy was talking about was the number of black people in London, and that came from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrival_of_black_immigrants_in_London the link I put on.