She would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain
Look, I know everyone in Britain is required to know the names and dates of all the monarchs going back to the 9th century, but expecting everyone to be able to come up with that name when put on the spot is going a little too far.
I wouldn't really think of Roman governors of Britain as a "British historical figure", more like a "Roman historical figure who happened to be stationed in Britain", same as with modern diplomats or military leaders.
Also, is it even confirmed he was black? I mean Algerian people are not exactly black. Could be wrong though. Don't know if there are any ancient scripts describing him.
Whilst I am sympathetic to the overall aim of this, things like this:
She would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain
...do stand out as being a a bit unrealisitic. I mean, how many governors of Roman Britain of any race or nationality can the typical Briton actually name? I'd be surprised if it was more than 1 and probably less than that.
And if the expectation is that anyone would know of this guy only because his chief contribution to history is "being black" then I am not sure what we are gaining here.
Okay. So half of britons can't name a black british historical figure? So what? That means HALF of britons CAN name a black british historical figure.
Personally I cannot name a single black british historical figure off the top of my head. But I also kind of find it offensive that people want to separate historical figures into "black" and "white" (and maybe others.. who knows?). Do we need to have a catagory for every type and mix? Like ffs.
It's important because whitewashing history is cultural erasure. Whether or not it's intentional, the education system is failing to properly educate students on the contributions of all types of people.
It matters to British children of color to see their cultures represented in positive ways and as great contributors to the world they live in.
Being "colorblind" ignores the fact that history was very much not and ignores that racism of the past still impacts so many people today.
It matters to British children of color to see their cultures represented in positive ways and as great contributors to the world they live in.
I might agree with this if I wasnt a British child of colour at one point in time. Anecdotally, I never cared about the colour of anyones skin. If you were a British historical figure then you were a British historical figure. As a kid I never cared to put people into different boxes based on race. I'm all for teaching kids about history from people of all walks of life, but I dont feel the need to say "this was a black british person" or "this was a white british person". They are British people.
This bothers me as well. The headline might as well be based on some other survey about sexual orientation or height or hair color. What a strange thing, to further propagate association by race.
I'm no Briton and i just know a few bits here and there of British history, but isn't the UK a traditionally mostly white country ?
I'm guessing half of say, Norwegians, also can't name a black Norwegian historical figure either. I'm betting it's even more than that and they're the most immediate neighbors of the UK.
I'm not saying they're not important to be remembered, or that there weren't black people in Europe since the Roman times, here and there, but statistically speaking, black people were the overwhelming minority.
Norway didn’t colonize the West Indies or Africa (though they ran the Société du Madal for Portugal), thereby increasing the number of black Norwegians to include residents of entirely new majority black countries. There are a lot of black Brits.
Also, why Norway and not France (physically closer, comparable colonial history) or the Republic of Ireland (former colony, significant “shared history” during the colonial times, literally touching)?
You would get the same results in France or Ireland. And if you want to get into figure in former British colonies, you'd be talking half the world. Name a famous black person from pre-revolutionary America that more than half of British would know.
Oh right yeah the colonial times. I guess when i was thinking about historical Britain i was thinking about celtic/roman/viking/medieval times. I tend to gloss over colonial times, i find that part of history not to be very appealing to me, but yeah, makes sense. Lots of black people because of the slave trade.
I picked east, i could've picked west, or south sure. No reason in particular.
Ugh George Washington Carver is known by a LOT OF people. Not to mention we have days dedicated to some of the greatest historical black Americans, Martin Luther King Jr for instance. But outside of that nearly every American knows a decent amount.
Even the hateful useless Americans know President Barack Obama.
Others of note when I asked several friends at work (blue collar average Joes and Jills, hotel maintenance):
Booker T Washington
Rosa Parks
Harriet Tubman
Jackie Robinson
Malcolm X
Hattie McDaniel
Fredrick Douglass
Oprah Winfrey (yeah I don’t know if this counts but I included it)
Out of the 15 or so people I asked all of them said Obama and MLK Jr.
Lots of Americans know Crispis Attucks, he's covered in history class. They may not associate him with britian but he was shot years before the revolution so he was a British subject.
I'm American so I thought I didn't know any Black British historical figures. Thanks, OP, for posting about this because it's inspiring me to educate myself on the subject.
This isn't just a race issue, how many historical figures in general can people name?
I'd gamble that 7% of British people think Winston Churchill signed the Magna Carta at the end of the first world war, and I include former prime ministers in that.
It is sad, but this is also because of the generally low level of interest in classical music.
I will say that even within classical music, he does not get the correct level of recognition. Possibly (likely) due to racial issues of the time.
I have noticed more is being done to address this recently, which is a positive. Classical radio stations are featuring his music more and running features discussing his life and music. He was also featured in this year's proms, which is probably most of the general publics only exposure to classical music.
I've only heard of Mary Seacole out of the black Britons from history we're expected to know of.
I actually googled the musician and he has a relatively interesting story but it's also not at all surprising people don't know who he is today - he had one piece which was very popular called the Feast of Hiawatha which according to Google was played regularly until 1939 and then doesn't seem to have been revived. Seems he was much better regarded as a conductor.
Anyhow, historically this country's establishment has made it hard for black people to get famous until the 20th century, something that this academic surely knows. She's either naive or deliberately skewing her results for headlines by asking for names from a time when her top rankings include a Roman Governor!
Yeah, I couldn't name one either (I'm from the US). The first name that popped into my mind was Jimi Hendrix but he wasn't British. I guess Othello wasn't British either, and may not have even been historical. I had heard of Idris Elba but didn't realize that he was British. No idea about the Spice Girls.
There is a story (maybe apocryphal) that former US Vice President Dan Quayle (famous for malapropisms) once referred to Nelson Mandela as a "great African-American", fwiw.
Around half believed the number was 250,000 or fewer and only 12% of Britons thought that more than 1 million people were taken, “despite the true figure being more than three times that amount”, the report found.
Atinuke, the book’s award-winning Nigerian-born author, said of the survey’s findings: “Half of UK adults cannot name a single Black historical figure and only 7% can name more than four … I think disbelief is really the only word.”
She would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became an abolitionist and writer; Mary Seacole, who provided sustenance and care for British soldiers during the Crimean war, and the composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor.
More than that, the forced contribution of millions of Black people before and during the Georgian era changed the course of British history – helping Britain to become the first industrialised nation in the world, and a superpower.”
She called for the government to drive more integration of Black British history in schools and universities, noting that, “as our world becomes more polarised and divided, increased inclusivity is needed now more than ever.
The results of this survey demonstrate an urgent need for books … that spotlight integral parts of our history that have been pushed to one side for far too long.”
The original article contains 593 words, the summary contains 228 words. Saved 62%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
How many people could recognize any but the 3-5 most repeatedly displayed historical figures from significantly before their own birth by sight or describe their appearance? I mean in Britain it might be a few more because they are so obsessed with their past monarchs but I doubt it would reach double digits.
I am not talking about school or documentaries or anything like that. I was more thinking there is a lot of media that portrays some of the past monarchs in always the same way, e.g. queen Victoria or king Henry VIII. It is not that the people know what they did or who they really were but their images are plastered in a lot of places in ways that others countries do not.