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

First topic message reminder :

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

Not wrong.


Is about 15% which equals about 1.2million.

Tommy Monk wrote:Not wrong.


Is about 15% which equals about 1.2million.

So?

Do people with different-colored skin scare you, you fragile little flower?

No.

But mass immigration, govt anti white British attitude and lack of democracy is quite worrying.

Tommy Monk wrote:No.

But mass immigration, govt anti white British attitude and lack of democracy is quite worrying.

More conspiracy bullshit, as there is no anti-white agenda by the Government, only a racist wackadoodle would claim that, thus proving Ben right that you are scared of skin colour

Waffle.

Tommy Monk wrote:Waffle.

Yes you always do waffle, the rants of an ignorant racist easily proven so.

77% of people want immigration greatly reduced.


Labour admit they got it wrong on immigration.


Tories were elected to bring it down from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands.


You claim to support the Tory plan.



Immigration has gone up!!!



And when has anyone ever voted FOR immigration....???




My statement stands.

Tommy Monk wrote:77% of people want immigration greatly reduced.


Labour admit they got it wrong on immigration.


Tories were elected to bring it down from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands.


You claim to support the Tory plan.



Immigration has gone up!!!



And when has anyone ever voted FOR immigration....???




My statement stands.

What has that got to do with black people living in London and this country for centuries?


Nothing and reducing is not the same as you wanting immigration stopped and still does not deflect from the point you are a proven racist

Proven????



I asked you to prove that the other day and you couldn't do it, so just more false accusations from you to further pursue your agenda.....



Anyone against mass immigration is a racist to you.....



Except when the Tories say it, labour admit they got it wrong and you claim to support the Tory policy of greatly reducing it....

Tommy Monk wrote:Proven????



I asked you to prove that the other day and you couldn't do it, so just more false accusations from you to further pursue your agenda.....



Anyone against mass immigration is a racist to you.....



Except when the Tories say it, labour admit they got it wrong and you claim to support the Tory policy of greatly reducing it....

It was easily proven, it so many cases, you made one of the worst about University placements, where not only I exposed your racism, do you forget that also where where you crawled away the little weasel you are?

Bullshit again dodge!!!



Who is The racist here??


Someone who accepts the entry requirements of universities and those who achieve the grades being able to go, whatever racial make up that results in???



Or someone who wishes to lower the entry requirements for only their preferred certain people (we all know who the 'poor and disadvantaged' are when the lefties say it), to result in A more 'multicultural' result???



We have seen how the lefties work when they criticised the school in Devon full of white English kids, being down graded for being 'insufficiently multicultural'!!!






I expose your leftie progressive agenda at every turn, and your only answer is The old 'SIXHIRB' response.

Tommy Monk wrote:
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!!!!!!!

If you are going to post up shit and then argue how accurate and factual it is, you should first make sure of its authenticity.....

Then you wrote....

Tommy Monk wrote:
Black population in London is said to be around 15%.


So around 1.2 million




Not sure where I saw the other figure earlier.


Might have mis read or mis typed...

Irn Bru wrote:
So while you're demanding authenticity on numbers given by others you're just guessing on the numbers you are banding about.

Your numbers are wrong.

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Not wrong.


Is about 15% which equals about 1.2million.

So why don’t you take your own advice  -  If you are going to post up shit and then argue how accurate and factual it is, you should first make sure of its authenticity.....

Your first figure was just a lie and your second figure is just a guess and a bad one at that.

Well I already asked comrade Sassy to verify her claim with actual facts and figures and was given nothing but a cloud of dust as she ran away......


So I had to try to find some figures of my own.....




But even then with the rough figures I could find, her claim was quickly And massively blown out of THe water!!!!!




If you Are such an expert then why don't you enlighten us with some more accurate numbers and Then we can blow her claim out of the water again...????




You claim I'm wrong but provide nothing to back it up....

Tommy Monk wrote:Well I already asked comrade Sassy to verify her claim with actual facts and figures and was given nothing but a cloud of dust as she ran away......


So I had to try to find some figures of my own.....




But even then with the rough figures I could find, her claim was quickly And massively blown out of THe water!!!!!




If you Are such an expert then why don't you enlighten us with some more accurate numbers and Then we can blow her claim out of the water again...????




You claim I'm wrong but provide nothing to back it up....

Just quote your source for the numbers you are banding about. As you have already said...

If you are going to post up shit and then argue how accurate and factual it is, you should first make sure of its authenticity.....

So go on then. Take your own advice and go and check the numbers and quote the source.

You're a chancer Tommy.

You lefties love taking things out of context don't you....



My comment you keep posting was in direct relation to Sassys claim.



She posted up a shit claim, stood behind it as if it was true, when it has been shown to be completely bullshit.



I have already asked her for proper figures and she ran away.



So I grabbed some rough estimates to put into the mix just to be able to do a rough calculation and show how wildly inaccurate her claim was.



I haven't been here arguing how accurate my figures are so I have nothing to defend, and have not fallen foul of my earlier statement.


I never claimed they were completely exact, as it is impossible to know the exact number.



But now you are here, adamant that the figures are so wrong.



So prove it with some better and more accurate numbers.



Otherwise you have no argument.

So basically you spend an awful lot of time trying to prove someone you don't know is wrong on a relatively minor and inconsequential point on the internet, Tommy.

Way to go.

It took no time at all to demolish the claim.



It took longer trying to get Sassy to verify it with figures....




As she kept running away!




And I take great pleasure in smashing leftie propaganda..... I find it......... most amusing!!!

About the author of this piece

A Page in the Life: Andrea Stuart

The writer Andrea Stuart tells Viv Groskop how she discovered she was descended from a brutal and charismatic slave owner.

Acclaimed biographer Andrea Stuart is one hell of an evocative historical writer. Especially when, as part of her story, she has her own family to draw on. In her new book Sugar in the Blood, you can almost taste “the cloying scent of burnt sugar” from her grandfather’s plantation. With both slaves and whites popping up in her family tree, the taste is bittersweet.

Her mother’s earliest memory is of “being put on a blanket … placed adjacent to the fields and being given ‘fingers’ of newly cut cane to suck”. Her grandmother’s take on life on the land in Barbados? “It’s a great life,” she told Stuart as a toddler sitting in her lap. “If you don’t weaken.”

Stuart is a writing tutor with the Faber Academy and her latest book is a sparkling history of sugar and the slave trade. It fizzes with life and is meticulously researched. We all owe a debt to the sweet stuff – and the people who gave their lives for it.

Stuart was born in the Caribbean and raised in the United States before her family came to England when she was in her early teens. She has spent over seven years working on this book, which led her to a conclusion she had always suspected but never been able to prove: that her family is descended from a white Englishman, George Ashby, who set sail for the West Indies four centuries ago. No wonder she feels at home in Surrey where she lives now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/9412615/A-Page-in-the-Life-Andrea-Stuart.html

Andrea Stuart has probably forgot more about Windrush and immigration than you will ever know. She is writing in the context of the black presence in England and working from the estimates being quoted in the 18th century Georgian period about 2-3% of London’s population alone were Black. That’s proportionately about the same as it is in this present day in the whole of England. Most people would know that’s what she meant. Check the figures and you will see that it’s pretty much near the mark.

Smashing LW propaganda!!! I don't think so.

Tommy Monk wrote:It took no time at all to demolish the claim.



It took longer trying to get Sassy to verify it with figures....




As she kept running away!




And I take great pleasure in smashing leftie propaganda..... I find it......... most amusing!!!

No Tommy, I know the hot air you are full and sat back laughing at you steaming. It was fun. BTW, not been here for 2 days.

Review

Belle: was British history really this black and white? We can't know if Dido Belle held the radical views the character in this film does, but even so, Amma Asante's costume drama is moving and authentic.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2014/jun/11/belle-amma-asante-historically-accurate

Worth reading.

"...The historians Kirstin Olsen and Gretchen Holbrook Gerzina have speculated that Africans may have represented a similar proportion of England’s total population as they do now..."



Yeah, mass immigration over the last 50 years didn't really happen at all.....

More and more evidence that shows Matti wrong, ha ha ha ha

 

TESS, eddie and BaggsOMuffins are now claiming that dolts like Tommy and smelly' are the most "competent" and intelligent members on this forum !!!

Dodge, you cannot take a rough guesswork figure for London and then say it was The same across the whole of UK.


Your own link said SPECULATED.



That means no facts.


End of story.

Well people clearly are showing your views are very wrong Matti, based on evidence finding

The evidence is in the local records, if you may have missed

Lone Wolf wrote: 

TESS, eddie and BaggsOMuffins are now claiming that dolts like Tommy and smelly' are the most "competent" and intelligent members on this forum !!!

Where ? Posts please !

Wrong dodge.


No evidence, just SPECULATION!!!!





And Stephenmarra, flea keeper just makes shit up and posts it.


These posts he is talking about are pure fantasy in his senile imagination...... just like the ones where he says I have claimed numerous military involvements and campaigns.....!


Along with the one where he claims I called him a communist....



None of any of these exist.

I suggest you read again, as evidence has been accumulated from local records, proving you have not a clue

Parish records and the subsidy rolls 
 
My investigations have led me to evidence contained in Tudor parish records. These documents include parish registers, some of which are written on single sheets of paper, others are bound together as books. The latter also include memorandum daybooks an important source of information which often contain notes written by a parish priest or clerk about the people who they baptised, married or buried.

However, these parish documents can be very difficult to understand as the information in them is sometimes indecipherable through age, or the way they are written. Moreover, even after finding a reference to an African in one parish register, it may have taken me another year before I found something else to corroborate this person’s existence or status. In some cases this meant revisiting evidence which I had earlier disregarded. Notwithstanding these difficulties, I have found descriptions of Africans in Tudor parish records, and details about their baptisms, marriages and 
burials. These records also occasionally provide indications about an African’s status and origins.


http://www.peoplesbookprize.com/Extracts/i1107.extract.pdf


I suggest you read it all