We'd best to start with the lecture then. He begins with a claim to evidence and commences from a place of inference instead. (often rooted in misinterpretation to boot). To use the modern parlance, this "PhD" is goofy to the max - ahistorical twaddle.
The word Stuart comes from the old nordish root Svart which means black. Stuart is the same word as Swarthy, which means black in old English. There was once a Stuart line of Kings in England. The name of the founding ancestor was Stuart which means Black man.
Very very interesting, very clear and referenced. Thank you for the presentation. I have now a better view of the use of words to describe dark-skinned people in different periods of time.
This clown has just told you lies. Youv'e sadly been brainwashed. In the uk the white folks do not have any black dna whatsoever. The blacks arrived here in the early 50s univited by the government and the people.
British people need to learn their own history... King Henry 8th was black.. Queen Anne Boleyn was black.. Elizabeth the first was black.. King James the 6th was black.. King Charles the first and second were black.. and their wives.. there are plenty of RU-vid videos that will tell the British people the truth... Enough said.
😂😂 Oh you poor deluded fool. None of them were black. King James was white from the house of Stuart he had his portrait painted many times and twice By the same artist one when he was a child and one when he was crowned. His mother Mary Queen of Scots had her wax deathmask done clearly showing she was white and her actual white descendants own it and Henry Stuart his father had his skull craniofacial superimposition reconstruction done by Durham university again proving he was white. You people are pathetic jealous culture vultures and desperate for relevance and validation to a history that doesn't belong to you.
You think you know our History. Then answer me this what unusual little known laws did William the conqueror create? Tell me in your own words what was the war of the roses. Tell me what the Bayeux Tapestry is?
Can you provide any sources disproving ANY of the evidence the man presented? Or let me guess, the presence of Africans in Europe was a fad that Europeans had because they just liked to PRETEND that Africans lived among them like it was normal. So all these images of black people, are just fake. Yeah, I know my reply is late, but maybe you've had two years to gather some evidence for your claim? lol
The ignorance in the comments is not surprising to be honest. Their willful ignorance missed the whole point of the lecture. Some of these folks may even have a N. African ancestor & now can't see past the colour of their own skin or current nationality. Those ancestors would no doubt be saddened by your ignorance and wish for you to see as perhaps they did. To see past the social, economic ignorance propagated over the last 400-500 years 🙏🏽
Disagree. Skin colour doesn’t matter. But please let’s stick to facts and keep things in proportion. Revisionism is fake science and wrong. So maybe there lived a few hundred people from Afrika or China or whatever in England. And maybe the Barabry rukers enslaved a million people from Europe. It doesn’t make North Africa English nor dies it make England African.
David Sassoon…….Yes they did. Europe is nothing without AFRICA. You literally think France can support its economy on its wine and cheese? No, it’s the $billions of gold it stole from Africa. $500billion/yr that France siphons from Africa til today. Without the crumbling “commonwealth” that feeds it, tiny barren Britain would be nothing but the sunless, cold, resourceless land that it actually is.
They were majorly “black” when you dive into what these words really mean. This notion is bs “oh black has nothin go to do with skin” that’s so beyond foolish you all let the weak pale historian lie to you all like that
@@jefffloyd1 so why wasn't his father called the black king? Why wasn't his mother called the black Queen He wasn't even called the black prince In his lifetime He was named that in the 16th century there is no written record of the black prince before then. He was called Edward of Woodstock And he gained the nickname the black prince because historians noted written accounts of how he swapped his royal shield during jousting for the shield he war in battle the same shield that sits above his tomb alongside his black battle helm. His son was king Richard the second Why wasn't he the black king Considering his father was the black prince who never made king. Now if you want to believe that when a nickname of colour is given it must simply mean skin colour and as you won't know this Edward of Woodstock had a brother called John of gaunt who's nickname among some historians is the red prince. Then it's Funny how he was the third son of Edward the third and the same mother and father as Edward of Woodstock which means if the black prince was a black man then they all were but for some reason it was only Edward that was singled out. Now was John the gaunt red faced? No just like his brother he has been given an unofficial name by historians. The reason he's the red is because he started the house of Lancaster which is one of the three houses of the war of the rose's. Who all had a rose emblem Red rose of Lancaster Tudor rose and the white rose of York You people want to believe that black must mean ethnicity even though the word black is the only evidence for believing it So you ignore all the inconsistencies and the fact that he had siblings from the same parents who for some reason avoided having their black ethnicity added to their name You ignore all the broader evidence to the point that when examples of portraits and artwork are given you've all taken the stance that an unparalleled conspiracy took place to whitewash the thousands and thousands of images paintings illustrations mosaics statues and tapestries. And not a single original artwork showing the real black person who was falsified survived. You think they are majority black when you look into the meaning of the word. Well sorry but if you had done that you'd realise the word is mainly related to negative emotions and actions Dark/black deeds. Blackened his character/name A black heart/soul Black magic Then there's sorrow And mourning Funeral clothes are Black You can see black used as a negative connotation every where Black balled a negative vote Blackmailed Blacklisted The fact is he wasn't black simple as that
@@UICeinnselaig well. Very poetic. It’s intriguing when you investigate the language you’ll find many clues to the questions of “black” the names themselves denote Dark complexion. Many names, words and suffixes have been altered by ‘definition’ however when you dive into the etymology and essential understandings of words like dub’ ‘Mac’ ‘Douglas’ all denote some sort of denotation of the word ‘dark’ or ‘black’
Come on what is this rubbish this is really stretching the truth, they were such an insignificant racial minority it can’t really be measured. I don’t like this attempt to change history, even in the time of the restoration there were very few people of even foreign descent in England Peppy’s mentions a black servant about twice in his diary. So it is fair to say it was negligible all examples given always describe it as an oddity it was only until the 1800s and early 1900s that you get a scrape of anything we would call a community.
52:35 "Edward the black prince" is in reference to the armour he wore. Any one who has studied the hundred year war knows this. This is trash. An example trash history revisionism and not worth your time.
Mike Hawk Africans had nothing to do with English history....they just wish it did, another attempt at trying to changenour history this man does not know what he is talking about...look at Africa today ...no running water, living in huts....... Integral to our history ...you must be joking
You're quite right to laugh at this fabricated, nonsensical take on English history. Allow me to join you: aaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
It's funny because there's books on OURHIDDENHISTORYCHANNEL showing how people in Britain were all describes as swarthy before white people arrived hahahahahahahaahha
@@neilmarshall5087 Right if it was so horrible it would have since been defunct. An organization that has been ongoing for over 400 years. But he sayin something...🥴
It's funny how there's black people on almost all ancient European family crest in all European countries. Just check the pope of Germany coats of arms 😶
Why all of a sudden are these people ccming here telling or trying to tell us about history. He needs to go to his ancestral home and teach his own people there own history..I find it hilarious he has the gall to preach all this,who does he think he is. He is jealous that his race isn’t the one he belongs too,,I am surprised he hasn’t rolled of a string of supposed inventions his race have added to the world.Whether we have other types of ancestry,it makes not a bit of difference.It’s the narrative that prevails today we in the European sphere. are of Anglo Saxon and white. 😊
Yeah, and africa was full of chinese indians and latinx.... africa was not 100% black, it was very diverse thus it's only natural that chinese companies own africa again.
Bernie Fynn, this is just another false narrative being propagated by revisionists. The Moors are Berbers who are Indigenous to North Africa and they're Not Black Negroids. The Berbers like the Arabs are of the Caucasoid race just like East Indians. It's always the Negroid and Oriental races who suffer from an insane inferiority complex. This man who gave this lecture is a phony making phony implications. No true scholar takes this non-sense seriously. Europeans always depicted North Africans and Middle Eastern Arabs as being dark skinned. That's not a new revelation.
29:12 Visigoths and vandals were not part of the population of the UK. Maybe as a super minority, but never as the ruling class. This presentation is not worth your time.
A very interesting spin on history, but too many mistakes to be taken seriously, I'm afraid. Even the most basic historian acknowledges that The Moors were north African Muslims from the Maghreb.
I was interested to see how many blacks were in England during the Middle Ages and to know their stories. This lecture was not informative. He took 30 minutes, just over half of his time, to mention one black person in England.
You know, I almost suggested some books. But this is such a snide comment. I can think of at least three books that talk about Africans in England and Scotland duing the late medieval period. But can just google them. It's not difficult to find if you're not 'lazy'
@@stephfoxwell4620 well, according to contemporary sources 10-15k African descendents lived in England in the 1780s. So, your incorrect. Plus that not what he said. Were you listening ?
@@bl00dhoney what books? Let me guess is one of them by macritchie ? Archival evidence shows records of 360 African people between 1500 to 1640. That's 360 over 140 years.
Cringe-worthy. And he talks about “lazy history”? “X wrote a book and it’s quite interesting … Y wrote a book and it’s quite interesting” Is this really the standard of academic debate today? Long bows drawn all over the place to prove what exactly? Apart from the fact that he’s obviously very angry. Sad … concerning …. terrifying even if this is what 21st students are now listening to
Yes. This IS the standard of Historical debate in modern Britain . The general atmosphere is probably similar to that of the Salem Witch trials. If you wish to keep your job then you must keep your mouth shut....
Everything you typed is nonsense. This positive, pleasant presenter is angry? Hahaha…you’re hilarious. You’re a quintessential “Karen” who falsely accuses and exaggerates reality. You literally typed the opposite of what we all see and hear because you think your “strong words”, though lies, will automatically be accepted as fact. You’ll fool some with that sneaky tactic…but not all.
Well, where were all the Black people in Mediaeval and Tudor times? Possibly in some of the port cities, but certainly not in huge numbers. There really weren't a large amount of people of Afro Caribbean or South Asian descent until the Post War period, i.e. 1950s and 60s. BTW, the oldest mosque in the UK in Woking was built in 1895. If there had been a significant Moslem population in the UK, I am sure there would've been mosques built before the late 19th century, but there is no evidence of this.
Don't you know that according to woke politics, a few anecdotal examples and deliberately misleading conflation of races, ethnicities and geographies is more than enough to disprove the overwhelming evidence and historical consensus.
@@chrisper94 doomsday book not books. There is a large volume and small volume of the one manuscript. And there is absolutely no mention of black people in the book.
The idea that there were a tiny few black people in medieval England can not be extrapolated out to mean " Africans are integral to English history" and so what anyway, all people have history. It doesn't matter what colour you are. Most people in England would have never left their village, The Iberian peninsular would have been like the dark side of the moon
@@idratherbeaphilthanajustin9533 There were, merchants, settlers and corsairs among the Barbary states(usually renegades who converted to Islam and joined the corsairs in order to escape slavery in North Africa), but most of all, European slaves. Well over a million taken from Europe into North Africa between 1580 and 1680 alone.
If only Hegel had known that, he would never had said that Africans were a people without history. The lecturer never said Africans are integral to English history. He said that people of African descent were an everyday part of that history. You might want to ask what emotions lead you to misunderstand or overstate what the lecturer said.
When the Romans arrived in Britannia, they said black/people of colour were already here! Many of the white Brits are fairly recent immigrants to these Isles! Just like modern day Arabs are recent to Egypt and aren't the ancient Egyptians. DNA/GENETICS do not lie. White history in Britannia doesn't go that far back, simply because they haven't been here too long!
He's not correct that the Norman Kings had no Anglo-Saxon blood - King Henry I married Matilda of Scotland - Grand-daughter of the Saxon King Edmund Ironside. Henry I married her to gain more legitimacy with his Saxon subjects.
He didn't say they didn't have Anglo-Saxon blood, he said they based their authority on the Norman bloodline. He even implies there were some fakers in the extended aristocracy, who were definitely pure English or Welsh but pretended to have Norman ancestry to legitimise their claims.
43:00 40:00 people of African descents made a significant part of the moorish people ; 41:20 26:00 mono ethnicity placed on certain terminologies 15:30 false representation of people of African descents 11:43 Aristocracy position on the basis of not being from Anglo Saxon or English heritage.
This is hilarious. You should do a video on the vibrant Eskimo culture in Cuba during the 1600's. Then you can do one about the Pygmies who were the real Hapsburg family.
This channel cites the book black Britannica in relation to medieval England when the book only tells the history from the 17th century. that says everything you need to know about the credibility of this another example of lame Black propaganda
Moor means land not African.. that’s why .. it not going to say Africans rulers ruler the uk . But if you just put moors . You will find moor .you put African it will not . An it will take away the history.. if you look up eggs you want find trees ..moor means land not African an American set up the uk ..
@@janettewhitchurch5118 From BBC History: The Tudor surname first appeared in the ancestry of Henry VII in the 1420s, when Owain ap Maredudd ap Tudur ap Goronwy ap Tudur ap Goronwy ap Ednyfed Fychan abandoned the Welsh patronymic system and adopted a fixed surname. Had he, as was generally the custom, adopted his father’s name, the English throne would have been occupied for a century by the Maredudd dynasty. He opted instead for his grandfather’s name - a prescient choice, for Tudur or Tudor comes from the Brythonic tud (territory) and rhi (king).
“It’s a society in which there is considerable ethnic diversity.” No, there isn’t. Outside mainstream media and the cities, the UK is predominantly white.
Black people see and hear the word African and their minds quickly race towards images that look black ..... not realizing that North Africa is mostly Browns ,Whites and hardly any blacks ... depends on the regions
at around 21:00 and onwards he is trying to to downplay the genetic contribution of Vikings - this is just nonsense. You can look at the recent paper published in Nature "Population genomics of the Viking world", Danish Vikings are estimated to have a 6% contribution to modern English ancestry.
@@McWallis339 Yeah the man is a clown. While I am sure that there was indeed the odd Moorish trader in Medieval Britain, their legacy in our genetics and culture is minor. They are nothing more than an interesting footnote of our history.
@@curtisrobinson1839 What is your point? If you are trying to suggest that I think British culture evolved in a vacuum, then no of course it doesn't. In fact my initial comment is about the influence of Scandinavian (i.e. 'foreign') invaders on our genetics (and culture).
@@jamiefitz5888 all you said is that he tried to "downplay viking contributions" you also said that the moors contributed almost nothing to civilization in Britain. Now you dodge my question; please explain any cultural or linguistic or ethnic lexicon unique to Britain. I can't wait to see your evidence!
Absolute twoddle. British history is essentially white European history. There were no black people in Britain in anywhere near significant numbers until the early 1900s.
As a seafaring nation of course there were black people/sailors or hired help that worked in or around the docks? To suggest black people made even 1% of the population before the 1980s is ludicrous? Most people who are in their 50s/60s born outside London probably never saw a black person growing up? Attempting to create a history that isn't there is laughable!!
I was brought up in Liverpool and didn't see a black person till I was in senior school in the 90s west Derby school we had one black lad in the whole school.
@@Aksamsons Really, so what do we miss??? That England before recent immigration did NOT resemble the American South in any way????????? Spare us all the BS, kid!!
That's way before anyone was born in the 60s. Go read the Jacobite Gleanings by John Mackay and see the thousands of black people from the Jacobite wars being transported to the colonies in 1745
This guys poorly executed argument is detrimental to his cause People moved around for sure But it looks bad when your evidence is so weak I support your point but it’s one step forward Two steps bacj
If your focusing on a 500 year period WHY does your bio start with, black people have been part of Britain for 2000 years?? You've just chopped off 3 quarters of history without any explanation about black people and their relevance. I'll try watching but its going to be another , poor me , represent me, The majority of people lived in rural England not cities, they never left their towns or county's. They would never have seen or known about any black people . So why doesn't your bio start with, 400 years of black people in Britain ( England) ... The kings, the rulers, are not a representation of the ordinary English person , monarchs even as far back as Saxons, married their daughters to nobles sons across the channel, Francia and other countries smaller, that have since been absorbed into large countries ,like the kingdom's that are today part of a country, like Germany. But it doesn't affect or change the ancestry the DNA of the majority of English people, 'royal bloodlines " marry each other, they don't marry commoners, they don't affect our bloodline. People interested in history, English history, don't have a starting point, we don't think ( as this guy wrongly assumed) " I'm English our country started in 1480 or 1600 or anything like that. We don't think in boxes, we consider paleolithic mesolithic neolithic, bronze and iron age, Romano British, Angle Saxon, Norman, plantagenet, Tudor, jacobean, Cromwellian, Georgian Victorian, as a starting point. We look at them all as part of the 'ingredients " that made us what we are. Like a wheel, we came went came went from the same small part of the world, northern European , our DNA is similar even today, people from Germany, Denmark Britain our DNA results are basically the same majority 'northern European " Our blood is the same, there are differences in the smaller parts, bits from across the world. But the largest is northern European. Not southern, not eastern, not Mediterranean, not Asian But northern European. So outside influence in that sense is tiny ,and the tiny is quite recent. Whatever the black or other coloured people were called Is irrelevant, The fact a small amount of foreign people lived in cities coastal, large tidal rivers. Is irrelevant. The ordinary people built, fought , shaped our country ,the majority share the same blood. From the people who built Stonehenge, fought died in city streets ( often small cities, towns) for people who ruled millennia ago to kings & battles like the Roses wars in places like StAlbans. I don't know of any influence or direction that would have been different if no black people at all ever came to England. They made no difference...
DeZeekat, funny you say that cos you have Black Hebrew Israelites believing King James VI is black, James Douglass of Scotland is black, Athelstan is black etc. Lol
@@tentonymason Correct! There are a lot of nobles who were black. The Messiah himself was a black man. You can only keep the truth away from people but for so long. I'm pleased to see that black scholars are bringing this information out.
everybody knows that blacks had being inside europe in all sort of conditions, from nobility all the way to merchants, soldiers to servants and slaves, but this person it´s overestimating by far that presence. By the way, moors were berebers, not blacks, only a fraction of them were really blacks (almoravids), and only the mauritanian and Mali part of the soldiers. The black inside the moors raiding the mediterranean were mostly muslims mercenaries from sub saharan origin (from Sudan all the way to Nigeria ato senegal) or muslim slaves also from sub saharan origin. In Art obviously the ones that had more impression for the European mind were the foreigners, East Indians, west Indians, Blacks, etc... and obviously it´s more striking to do a battle were all the soldiers were sudanese instead of the standard bererer or semitic soldier from the fatimid Caliphate in a picture depicting medieval fight with fatimids
@@user-hy4xz1qt9h the Moors were majority Arab. The clue is in the Language and the religion. (Arabic/Islam) The moorish conquest of Iberia was founded by an Arab born in Syria and Tariq ibn Ziyad had 12 thousand Arabs in his army. I love the way you say the "Arabic" manuscripts are in who's possession? The proof is most definitely in the pudding.
Absolutely. Most of these comments missed the point of the lecture entirely. 20:09. He is showing that using slavery as a reference point is an error and that black presence in Europe predates that. He is talking about the ancestry of Britain and explaining why most Brits today only find out they have some "African" ancestry from DNA tests. The comments keep using modern times (1960s etc) as a reference point, instead of 500+ years ago. It's a shame really.
Don't jump to conclusions. I'm sure he'll do a video about the vibrant g@y Eskimo population in Londinium who's descendants built all the places and created a space program.
I bet there were more Italians than any sub Saharan Africans. And it’s a slight of hand trying to say that sub Saharan Africans were in Europe in significant numbers when it referred to North Africans.
Warrior lord. Keep rewriting history. I’m swarthy but I’m not from Africa. You will also find that the genetics of Sicilians and inddded those of others in the Italian peninsula are pretty homogeneous throughout. But yes do t just rewrite European history start treating the history of the peoples of the americas too. As for colonialism clearly if the European population was African it was only people going back! I expect Julie’s Caesar was from equatorial africa. And Scipius africa us was given the title africa us because of his success against Carthage but because he was from The Congo.
@@youtubeyoutube936 Bruh nobody rewriting history lol it's what Europeans has done and swarthy is described as someone with dark complexion even if your an African or not . It doesn't pertains to people with a tan complexion bruh. *COLLINS DICTIONARY* *Swarthy* *Word forms:* swarthier, swarthiest ADJECTIVE A swarthy person has a dark face. He had a broad swarthy face. *Synonyms:* dark-skinned, dark, swart[archaic], dark-complexioned More Synonyms of swarthy *swarthyin American English* (ˈswɔrði; ˈswɔrθi) ADJECTIVEWord forms: ˈswarthier or ˈswarthiest having a dark complexion *swarthyin American English* (ˈswɔrði, -θi) ADJECTIVE Word forms: swarthier, swarthiest (of skin color, complexion, etc.) dark
Reference books: Ancient and Modern Britons by MacRichie, The Sufi by Shah, A Book of Beginnings by Massey, People of The Secret by Scott, Nature Knows No Color Line by Rogers ect...
Macritchie was a folklorist and head of the Scottish folklore society. His works have no historical value and ancient and modern Britain's isn't even in print anymore. He has been widely debunked for his Misquotes and mistranslations and context manipulation. He also said Britain had giants and elves and fairies and dwarves. He is only ever cited by afrocentrists who scrape the barrel.
If you think about it you and I don't carry all the traits of our two parents let alone grandparents. So a black ancestor of yours from the 1700's would not be apparent.
@@izsoirie7567 Even quicker when you think that it was more like 25 years and it would have been the mothers age that would determine generation age gap and women married young.
@@izsoirie7567 yes, I was thinking about Megan and Harry Windsor. That was quick. Although the offspring are neither black not white nor Celtic or African or Saxon, not much trace of origins left.
@@fernblack5259 Yes, it’s clear that Harry is not Charles’s but the son of James Hewitt. Were this not the case, Harry and Megan are 12th generation cousins. That aside, we often she a resurgence of genetic information come through from the grandparents which in effect is the reverse of what’s being said here. Our genotypical and phenotypical expressions can vary widely.
How was it possible to hide Africans of significant numbers in England? This significant number I imagine would survive well into the 20th century. I suppose the Windrush generation would have met this significant well rooted significant African population when they arrived. This significant African population with such a long history should be doing exceptionally well in England. Possibly out performing the recent Asian and Caribbean arrivals.
Commercial Sailing ships!! They needed a large crew. At ports in Africa and the far east they would have to recruited replacements for losses from the local population. These guys (nearly always guys) would arrive back in Blighty and do what sailors do in port. Voila! our ancestors. No passports, no paperwork, just get off the ship and procreate. The large numbers wouldn't show up due to gene dilution. We all have some grandparents from say the last 500 years.
@@ianhamilton3113 so just complete guess work from you. Including the guess that commercial ships had loads of deaths on them..and then these Africans came to port at Britain and were just allowed to leave the ship and then they were all successful at meeting and having kids with the local women. Basically your comment is exactly the same as the false assumption of a major black presence in England at these times. I.E. just complete guess work with no verifiable facts to support them.
colonisation-inspired evolution...the only thing Darwin had to say about Human races is that basically they displayed some variety, just like any other animal
@@bilboblaggins7659 Yes, but for example medieval antisemitism had nothing to do with the ethnic background of the jews, it was 100% a religious prejudice, not a racial one.
@Just Some Dude Didn't the lecturer not say at the beginning how long he has been studying history for and did he ever mentioned he was an historian? Clearly you've a hearing problem or you wasn't listening. Smh
This fellow is the least academically honest person I have ever seen give a lecture; I'm sure there are even worse but, fortunately, I have not come across them. His attempt at promoting his political agenda is quite remarkably unsubtle. This sort of rubbish must be called out every time it rises. 👍
In 500 years what are they going to talk about the history of Black people and Africa, how great and noble people they were, and how they need help from other nations and maybe mention about young pregnancy with men three times their age, and some parts of Africa they still live in mud huts and I could keep on, know this will not bo mentioned. BROTHER
In 500-1000 year all history of white european will be replaced with arab/african..and all of english history will be black...why can't people see what's happening lol..wr are being replaced...and people like this guy are racist and a black supremacist
Oh, really? Isn't Europe developed with the African resources and labour? But you've the guts to speak ill of them even after enslaving them? Where is your humanity?
They aren't called the early medieval, its called the Dark Ages. I might take this bloke more seriously if he wasn't so shouty and partial. Does he think we don't know that the so called Royal Family are from anywhere but England. Seems like he thinks it's some kind of shock horror.
It was actually, the term is derived from the Latin term medium aevum, meaning middle age, and was penned in the 19th century. the dark ages are either just a synonym of the same period or describing periods during the most frequent feudal wars, and the various plagues due to societal practices based on superstitions, and those superstitions making the prevalence of plagues and diseases more prevalent(including the Black Death). So the Dark ages would be more accurately described as a subcategory of the Middle ages, so the presenter is still right.
Most of England’s Royal family didn’t originate in England, but rather Germany. And as much as most might dislike it, so called black people were at the inception of European monarchs and royal families. A great book that puts true history in perspective is Memoirs of the secret services of John Macky. John Macky in his own writing describes the the people of the very era being spoken about in this lecture.
@@greywolf7422 The dark ages referred to the period between the departure of the Romans and the ascent of Alfred when I was at school but then again I might not have been listening
@@ianandrewoconnor9032 Haven't heard of Alfred, will have to look him up, I assumed due to what I read about the middle ages that it was just an off the cuff term that generalizes how miserable life was during that time frame, similar to how we generalized the decade themes of the 50's, 60's, 70's ect. were, despite them occurring during what today we refer to as the modern age.
Honest opinion because whites have made sure globally to keep control and never let what happened before happen again. If we put Europeans in the same position for hundreds of years colonize and change mindset you would see the same end by product Lol you know this you just decided to take a jab which I understand lol
There was black Romans. Septimius Severus the Emperor was black. He lived and died in York . There was an African Commantiy in Burgh By Sands in Cumbria called Aballava Fort.
Look up John Macky British spy d.1726 Memoirs, his descriptions of NOBILITY was not always white and these were people alive in his own time, spy subjects. Also learn definitions for the words: swarthy, ruddy, & sanguine, so you understand what the descriptions mean. Those in control of narratives forgot that book😂
Not actually a college at all, you have no campus, no students, award no degrees and have no academic staff. Half your budget, £495K goes in "staff costs" for 8 full time employees (non academics) sounds excessive for a college registered as a charity.
I think you need to learn what a college is. Gresham is the third oldest extant college in England after the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge. I don't think they're worried about what an anonymous on the internet thinks.
@@bl00dhoney are you really comparing Gresham with Oxford and Cambridge? Gresham college does not enroll students or award degrees. Therefore has no academic value. Believe me this man would never host a lecture at Oxford or Cambridge
@@bl00dhoney so I think you need to learn the difference between a college that enrolls students and gives degrees to a college that gives free open lectures.
@@donjindra Then please provide counter evidence. The current archeological evidence points that there was a small, but present, black population in England for most of its history.
@@Frenchfrys17 Yes, very, very small, culturally insignificant. But why would you ask for evidence for something that did not exist? That makes no sense.
@@donjindra I would not say culturally insignificant. Especially in Roman Briton where sub Saharan dna and artifacts have been commonly found. It’s just that back then people didn’t copyright their achievements and works based on their race.
Mesolithic Britons were closely related to other Mesolithic people throughout Europe, but Neolithic individuals are close to Iberian and Central European Middle Neolithic populations, modelled as having about 75% ancestry from Anatolian farmers with the rest coming from Western Hunter-Gatherers (WHG) in continental Europe. Some British Neolithic individuals had slightly (about 10%) more WHG genes, suggesting that some members of the WHG population in Britain did pass on their genes. Neolithic individuals from Wales have no detectable local admixture of Western hunter-gatherer genes, those from South East England and Scotland show the highest admixture of WHG genes, and those from South-West and Central England are intermediate. This suggests that farming was brought to the British Isles by sea from north-west mainland Europe, by a population that was, or became in succeeding generations, relatively large. One 2016 study, using Iron Age and Anglo-Saxon era DNA found at grave sites in Cambridgeshire, calculated that ten modern day eastern English samples had 38% Anglo-Saxon ancestry on average, while ten Welsh and Scottish samples each had 30% Anglo-Saxon ancestry, with a large statistical spread in all cases. However, the authors noted that the similarity observed between the various sample groups was possibly due to more recent internal migration Another 2016 study conducted using evidence from burials found in northern England, found that a significant genetic difference was present in bodies from the Iron Age and the Roman period on the one hand, and the Anglo-Saxon period on the other. Samples from modern-day Wales were found to be similar to those from the Iron Age and Roman burials, while samples from much of modern England, East Anglia in particular, were closer to the Anglo-Saxon-era burial. This was found to demonstrate a "profound impact" from the Anglo-Saxon migrations on the modern English gene pool, though no specific percentages were given in the study. third study combined the ancient data from both of the preceding studies and compared it to a large number of modern samples from across Britain and Ireland. This study concluded that modern southern, central and eastern English populations were of "a predominantly Anglo-Saxon-like ancestry" while those from northern and southwestern England had a greater degree of indigenous origin. study published in 2020, which used ancient DNA from across the Viking world in addition to modern data, noted that ancient samples from Denmark showed similarities with samples from both modern Denmark and modern England. While most of this similarity was attributed to the earlier settlement of the Anglo-Saxons, the authors of the study noted that British populations also carried a small amount of "Swedish-like" ancestry that was present in the Danish Vikings but unlikely to have been associated with the Anglo-Saxons. From this, it was calculated that the modern English population has approximately 6% Danish Viking ancestry, with Scottish and Irish populations having up to 16%. Additionally, populations from all areas of Britain and Ireland were found to have 3-4% Norwegian Viking ancestry. The designated five main Y-DNA haplogroups for various regions of Britain and Ireland Haplogroup R1b Haplogroup R1a Haplogroup I Haplogroup E1b1b Haplogroup J Haplogroup R1b is dominant throughout Western Europe. While it was once seen as a lineage connecting Britain and Ireland to Iberia, where it is also common, it is now believed that both R1b and R1a entered Europe with Indo-European migrants likely originating around the Black Sea; R1a and R1b are now the most common haplotypes in Europe. One common R1b subclade in Britain is R1b-U106, which reaches its highest frequencies in North Sea areas such as southern and eastern England, the Netherlands and Denmark. Due to its distribution, this subclade is often associated with the Anglo-Saxon migrations. Ancient DNA has shown that it was also present in Roman Britain, possibly among descendants of Germanic mercenaries. Ireland, Scotland, Wales and northwestern England are dominated by R1b-L21, which is also found in north western France (Brittany), the north coast of Spain (Galicia), and western Norway. This lineage is often associated with the historic Celts, as most of the regions where it is predominant have had a significant Celtic language presence into the modern period and associate with a Celtic cultural identity in the present day It was also present among Celtic Britons in eastern England prior to the Anglo-Saxon and Viking invasions, as well as Roman soldiers in York who were of native descent. There are various smaller and geographically well-defined Y-DNA Haplogroups under R1b in Western Europe. Haplogroup R1a, a close cousin of R1b, is most common in Eastern Europe. In Britain it has been linked to Scandinavian immigration during periods of Viking settlement. 25% of men in Norway belong to this haplogroup; it is much more common in Norway than the rest of Scandinavia. Around 9% of all Scottish men belong to the Norwegian R1a subclade, which peaks at over 30% in Shetland and Orkney. Haplogroup I is a grouping of several quite distantly related lineages. Within Britain, the most common subclade is I1, which also occurs frequently in northwestern continental Europe and southern Scandinavia, and has thus been associated with the settlement of the Anglo-Saxons and Vikings. An Anglo-Saxon male from northern England who died between the seventh and tenth centuries was determined to have belonged to haplogroup I1. The most common haplogroup of Africa (black people) is L2. You Want to try and claim a British and European Black heritage yet the most legitimate form of proof is DNA and it's haplogroups and they irrefutably verify Europe and Britain is white.
My Y-DNA haplogroup is R1b, which is linked to the Iberian peninsula as well as parts of west Africa! I wonder if some of my ancestors were moors from north Africa?
If you have West Irish or Cornish ancestors maybe a bit. Thing is if you go back 350 years you have 8,000 forebears. Any one of whom could have that dna.
No, R1b is very common in Western Europe, much more than around the Tchad lake. This is european, we know its genetical history. A common explanation for the minor presence in Africa is that north africans had european slaves and also had connexions to this regions of black africa. So R1b residual presence in WA is probably descending from european slaves.
R1B used to be classified as African. But it's now discovered to be so widespread in Europe, rather than accept most modern Europeans have African ancestry, they've reclassified it as European... classic academic tactic...
@@andrewtayo5937No it is not. It's found in Africa in very small percentages of the population, but is the majority haplogroup (alongside R1a) in Europe.
WE WAS KANGS ..... but now we can dismiss all the calls for reoperations, and complaints about racial slavery since Africans were British 2000 years ago so I do not want to hear about racism anymore since we are all British
Africans we not British 2000 years ago. Blacks didn't arrive in the uk until the early 50s. Check out The Windrush Generation (blacks) that travelled here by ships in the 50s. They came here univited by the Government and people of the uk. People did not want them here. I'm in my 50s so know the history of this country. In Africa and before whites arrived there they were and still do sell there own into slavery.
@@janettewhitchurch5118 I am aware of the concerted effort to rewrite history, WE WAS KANGS is a reference to the claim that ancient Egyptians were black and that the current population is a more recent addition. I am simply pointing out other implications of the claim.
@@modularsamples Sure they were in Africa, but just not Egypt. I am not cretin if any were in northern Africa at all. You could read books if you want to know or you could just watch historical evangelists spin lies to comfort you. You can find these charlatans claiming Egypt, Olmecs in South America, and I am sure may others. They will tell you all kinds of inventions and civilizations are black Africans and you can puff your chest out in pride. Just depends on if you want to get your history for the history section or fiction section. either way, start reading.
So you came here to be triggered rather than to learn? Even if what you said has some validity, those Black Brits would not be Black American. They would still be Brits. But I'm sure to you that Black is just Black.😏
Strangely, for me the way to view historical events was quite the opposite. I always thought that the further back you go, you would find 'purer' historical data. This was based on the idea that a man was not classified by his skin color in ancient times but by his nation of origin. So the actual tainting of history is relatively recent.
@@tarharqataseti9261 Don’t take this the wrong way but ruddy, tawny, sable, brown, swarthy and especially brunette are all terms used to describe the different shades of people we’d classify as “black” today. Jackie Robinson was even described as a brunette. Back up until the 1900s, brunette meant dark brown complexion and hair.
@@tarharqataseti9261 Yep, that’s why I laugh at these non melanated racists in the Western World because they really have no clue. They even argue what Moors meant back then by using current definitions.
I believe that a few black people have been dotted about Britain for a long time, there have not been significant numbers historically, mass immigration is a late 20 century thing.
For centuries sailing ships have brought back sailors recruited in overseas ports. When they arrived they did what sailors do in port. Weirdly even HMS Victory had crew from Africa, India and Brazil (22 countries in total!!!). I would have thought a naval vessel would only be crewed by Brits.
@@mickvonbornemann3824 You are quite correct. Small numbers but over centuries that adds up. I think the problem for racists is that they have realised that as it's impossible to find out who all your decedents were over the last 500 years then they are very likely to have several Africans in their family tree.
@Charles White Who would be the lion and who would be the mouse? How and why do you presume your 'matching a mouse to a lion' claim? What is 'seriously unfair' about having David Starkey to come and demonstrate his expertise against the history or non history of Africans in England as articulated in this lecture?
@Charles White I don't do guess work. I hereby reproduce the questions for you to answer. Who would be the lion and who would be the mouse? How and why do you presume your 'matching a mouse to a lion' claim? What is 'seriously unfair' about having David Starkey to come and demonstrate his expertise against the history or non history of Africans in England as articulated in this lecture? By the way, could you point me to a roll of 'lion' historians and 'mouse' historians regarding the history or non hhistory of Africans in England.
