Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[HVC]

Oh yeah, people back then totally didn't care about "black" as a thing. That's a product of slavery.
Religion was the primary basis on which they differentiated the world from all I hear - though it does seem a bit overly far the other way to pretend they wouldn't notice "hey George has super dark skin like nobody else I've ever met".

But 1/4 black =black sounds weird to me.

You should check out the old Spanish mixed groups  chart if you want weird.

[crazy canuck]

Oh yeah, people back then totally didn't care about "black" as a thing. That's a product of slavery.
Religion was the primary basis on which they differentiated the world from all I hear - though it does seem a bit overly far the other way to pretend they wouldn't notice "hey George has super dark skin like nobody else I've ever met".

But 1/4 black =black sounds weird to me.

I wonder to what extent that is true. The one visible minority we do have records of in that period, I think, are Jews, and they did not have a good time.

In Eastern Europe Indian immigrants got segregated into the class of (half-)nomadic entertainers and general underclass where they stay to this day. Hard to imagine what else than skin colour was the identifying method to do that. So the thought of some (especially if very few) black people showing up in Europe and then people around them being like "whatever" is hard to imagine and I think is way too rose-tinted.

Were Jewish people a visible minority?  Clothing?

[Jacob]

It's plausible that there were some black men in 14th century London, but I'm struggling with the idea that there was a more than neglible number of black women. And the study doesn't find any "discrimination" against black men, only thohat they identify as black women.

Looking at the research in question (or rather the Guardian reporting of that research) it seems that they're talking about people with "Black ancestry"
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/nov/21/women-with-black-african-ancestry-at-greater-risk-when-plague-hit-london

When the Black Death hit London in autumn 1348, it caused a wave of devastation, with more than half the city's population thought to have been killed. But a study has now found women with Black African ancestry could have had a greater risk of death than others.

Research has previously demonstrated that, far from being a homogeneous white society, medieval England – and its capital – had considerable diversity. As well as residents hailing from the far reaches of Europe, documentary and archaeological evidence has revealed people of Black African ancestry and dual heritage lived in London.

The results reveal nine plague victims appeared to be of African heritage, while 40 seemed to have white European or Asian ancestry. Among the non-plague burials, the figures were eight and 88 respectively.

While the sample size is small, the team say the findings show a higher proportion of people thought to have Black African heritage in the plague burials compared to the non-plague burials.

Further analysis based on mathematical modelling suggests females thought to have Black African heritage had a greater risk of dying of plague compared with white individuals of similar ages.

So I guess one possible question is to what degree the people identified as having "Black African heritage" would be considered Black today.

If we work from your hypothesis that 14th century London would likely have some Black men, then presumably some of them would have daughters or grand daughters who would show up in this kind of analysis, independently of whether we believe "1/4 black = black" to use Josq's phrasing.

On a different topic - I'm not sure that it's correct to assume that only men roam. It is my impression that the archeology indicates that women moved around more than written sources suggest. Again this is primarily derived from my reading on viking age topics, but it's also borne out be the almost complete absence in official history of the description of camp followers etc who were a significant feature of pre-modern warfare and involved a signficiant number of women.

[HVC]

You can discrimate against people based on culture and practices. Which I where I assume Jews and gypsies fit in, especially after a few generations once they looked like the indigenous population. In Portugal for example (duque feel free to make fun of me ) Jews assimilated cultural aspects to avoid persecution, and detection. Sausage making and eating was a big part of the culture. You're not curing sausage means you don't eat pork which means you're Jewish (or Muslim). To get around this Jews invented alternative sausages that were porkless to fit in culturally. They're still around and great.  Farinheira Made with flour and poultry fat traditionally and Alheira made with rabbit meat or poultry. Although now that the Jews actually have converted these are usually made with pork fat , but you can still get traditional style.

That is to say in a long and winding way that they weren't discriminated for the colour of their skin but their unwillingness to assimilate culturally and religiously.

[HVC]

On a different topic - I'm not sure that it's correct to assume that only men roam. It is my impression that the archeology indicates that women moved around more than written sources suggest. Again this is primarily derived from my reading on viking age topics, but it's also borne out be the almost complete absence in official history of the description of camp followers etc who were a significant feature of pre-modern warfare and involved a signficiant number of women.

That makes sense for people colonizing, bring their wives and daughters. Which Viking eventually did during and after there raiding sprees. I would assume, however, that most sub Saharan Africans weren't going to England to colonize, but arrived as part of trade parties. Something that was much more male heavy.

[Josquius]

Oh yeah, people back then totally didn't care about "black" as a thing. That's a product of slavery.
Religion was the primary basis on which they differentiated the world from all I hear - though it does seem a bit overly far the other way to pretend they wouldn't notice "hey George has super dark skin like nobody else I've ever met".

But 1/4 black =black sounds weird to me.

I wonder to what extent that is true. The one visible minority we do have records of in that period, I think, are Jews, and they did not have a good time.

In Eastern Europe Indian immigrants got segregated into the class of (half-)nomadic entertainers and general underclass where they stay to this day. Hard to imagine what else than skin colour was the identifying method to do that. So the thought of some (especially if very few) black people showing up in Europe and then people around them being like "whatever" is hard to imagine and I think is way too rose-tinted.

Jews and Roma had a different religion thus were more "other" than a Sudanese Christian would be, even if we assume a blonde haired blue eyed jew in Sweden.

Interesting related stuff lies around all the medieval folklore around Prestor John and all that. A visibly African or Asian person who happened to be Christian could well find themselves more welcome than someone from elsewhere in Europe given the wonderful stories they could no doubt tell and being completely above any local rivalries.

[HVC]

That's not to say black people weren't noticed. They'd be different. Just like you'd notice someone that's cross eyed. But you wouldn't necessarily note down that John was crossed eyed in your journal, nor would you segregate all cross eyed people for persecution.

[HVC]

Oh yeah, people back then totally didn't care about "black" as a thing. That's a product of slavery.
Religion was the primary basis on which they differentiated the world from all I hear - though it does seem a bit overly far the other way to pretend they wouldn't notice "hey George has super dark skin like nobody else I've ever met".

But 1/4 black =black sounds weird to me.

I wonder to what extent that is true. The one visible minority we do have records of in that period, I think, are Jews, and they did not have a good time.

In Eastern Europe Indian immigrants got segregated into the class of (half-)nomadic entertainers and general underclass where they stay to this day. Hard to imagine what else than skin colour was the identifying method to do that. So the thought of some (especially if very few) black people showing up in Europe and then people around them being like "whatever" is hard to imagine and I think is way too rose-tinted.

Jews and Roma had a different religion thus were more "other" than a Sudanese Christian would be, even if we assume a blonde haired blue eyed jew in Sweden.

Interesting related stuff lies around all the medieval folklore around Prestor John and all that. A visibly African or Asian person who happened to be Christian could well find themselves more welcome than someone from elsewhere in Europe given the wonderful stories they could no doubt tell and being completely above any local rivalries.

Hell, europe loved mongols when they first arrived. Saviours of Christianity. Didn't know what religion they were, but good on them for killing muslims. Then they started killing Christians and well, sentiments changed

[Jacob]

Presumably some of that is also Vikings enslaving people? Not to fall into the potential problem I mentioned earlier where slavery is the default explanation but there's actually limited other evidence for it.

Potentially, but most of the examples I've seen mentioned were things like "the dental records of these two warriors indicate that they were born and grew up in what today is Baltic Poland". It's not just the genetics here. Dental records can - as I understand it - identify where someone lived based on some sort of radiation impact that's fairly local, not to mention

It is fairly clear - to current archeological and historical understanding at least - that the warrior elite (and sub-elite) included a fairly high proportion of people from external ethnic and cultural groups.

I know there's a pop-cultural image of "strong viking warriors abducting the hot women and having their ways with them"... which probably happened (though I expect the trade value of any slaves taken was of higher priority in most cases). However it's not a given that any children from such unions would be reflected in the graves being studied (which tend to be high or mid status). It may be more likely (my speculation here), that children of such unions would remain as slaves (and thus not appear in the graves we're looking at), be exposed at childbirth, or be born outside of the viking homelands (as most captured slaves were intended for export).

Romance novels aside, I don't think vikings are generally thought to have been raiding for women to mother their children (though it probably did happen to some extent). Speculation on my part, but I have not come across the "genetic diversity as a result of slave-taking" thesis from anyone I'd consider an authority on the topic.

Yeah although again it's worth sayig this study was based on a single graveyard with, I think about 100-150 burials and wasn't looking at DNA analysis but anthropology/shape of the skull analysis. It was then spun either in the reporting or how the PRs sent it to reporters as "Black women most likely to die in medieval London plague" which seems like a reach

Yeah that may be a bit much - is it the research team that's phrasing it thus (rather than the slightly more careful "with Afrian heritage"), not the journalists?

In any case, it definitely worked! Look at this conversation we're having right now

For sure - it's why I'm always a little dubious about policing of terms like Saracens, Moors, Garamantes, Ethiopians as having a specific meaning. In the current usage and our understanding of those terms they have a distinct meaning, for Moors, Garamantes and Saracens you'll see people say that means they're North African. But I don't think that's clearly how those terms were used in the Medieval period - or early modern for that matter. I think again it's reading back.

There's a lot of that going on, for sure.

[Sheilbh]

That makes sense for people colonizing, bring their wives and daughters. Which Viking eventually did during and after there raiding sprees. I would assume, however, that most sub Saharan Africans weren't going to England to colonize, but arrived as part of trade parties. Something that was much more male heavy.

One part of women travelling in Medieval Europe that we know a bit about (Margery Kempe springs to mind) are pilgrimages. But on how ephemeeral that is, her book is extraordinary but I think it was only discovered in the 1930s and there's only one original copy - so God knows what we've lost (there were, I think, excerpts in other books).

But she is illiterate - her book is narrated to a clerk who wrote it down, but the daughter of a well-to-do merchant in King's Lynn which is hugely prosperous in that period because it's central to the wool trade with Europe. She goes off to see Julian of Norwich another local female mystic, she goes on pilgrimages to Jerusalem (via Venice), to Santiago, to Rome, to Prussia. Her own mystical experiences seem to have been partially prompted from a reading of Bridget of Sweden - which all points to how this world of pilgrimage and mystical experience was also a place where women could have a distinct role (also Catherine of Sienna). And a 15th century pilgrimate from East Anglia to Jerusalem and back takes a very long time.

She's not a normal Medieval woman - but she's joining groups of pilgrims at all points. There is certainly a lot of motion and I think particularly for women in that - in a way that, say, trade may be more male.

Admittedly her mystical experience does seem to involve a lot of crying and telling people about her spiritual marriage to Jesus. And reading between the lines I think there's a few hints that her travelling companions didn't necessarily love her company. I think in Venice the group she travelled with give her the wrong date for the ship to Jerusalem and she doesn't realise until she spots them on the dock I think at another point she so annoys her companions that they actually start praying for a storm to sink the ship they're on

But I think even that - which we're hearing from her perspective - gives a hint of something going on. I have no doubt they are genuinely religiously motivated in making those pilgrimages but, I imagine her companions aren't alone in hoping to avoid fellow pilgrims who are a little too religious.

[HVC]

We've all travelled with that person at least once

[Jacob]

Again on vikings - I think given how willing viking conqueors were to integrate with the people they ruled or interacted with (Normandy, England, Ukraine, Ireland, the Isles) it seems pretty reasonable to me that they'd be open to outsiders in their homelands as well.

Now how much of that can be projected on to attitudes 14th century London as opposed to the attitude of Tamas' Hungarian ancestors who kept the ancestors of current Roma people at arms length, that's perhaps a different question.

[HVC]

Again on vikings - I think given how willing viking conqueors were to integrate with the people they ruled or interacted with (Normandy, England, Ukraine, Ireland, the Isles) it seems pretty reasonable to me that they'd be open to outsiders in their homelands as well.

Now how much of that can be projected on to attitudes 14th century London as opposed to the attitude of Tamas' Hungarian ancestors who kept the ancestors of current Roma people at arms length, that's perhaps a different question.

Roma in Spain and Portugal were kept at arms length too. Don't know how long they were in Italy, but they obviously have issues too. Then again from my understanding it started mainly as a religious thing in Iberia and by the time most had converted segregation by race was already a thing so they got grandfathered in for racism. They also kept their nomadic roots, which as a general rule sedentary cultures don't like. Bedouin's are discriminated against too, to this day, for example.

Don't know how religion was treated by Vikings. Being pagan they could be more open to their religions which helps greatly in assimilation.

[Sheilbh]

We've all travelled with that person at least once

Yes. I've always thought of her as the Medieval equivalent of the guy in the hostel who's brought a guitar.

[Jacob]

So when it comes to the Roma it's pretty clear that there was a strong segragation along culture. The Roma did not adopt the culture around them in Spain, Portugal, or Hungary whether because of their own inclinations or the inclinations of the socities around them.

Conversely, the non-Scandinavians who existed in the viking world seem to have adapted and integrated into the predominant culture fairly smoothly.

From that I'd hypothesise that if there was a substantial Black population in 14th century London they would've adopted the local culture and therefore been non-controversial and rarely noted.