Thus from a mixture of all kinds began,
That het’rogeneous thing, an Englishman:
In eager rapes, and furious lust begot,
Betwixt a painted Britain and a Scot.
Whose gend’ring off-spring quickly learn’d to bow,
And yoke their heifers to the Roman plough:
From whence a mongrel half-bred race there came,
With neither name, nor nation, speech nor fame.
In whose hot veins new mixtures quickly ran,
Infus’d betwixt a Saxon and a Dane.
While their rank daughters, to their parents just,
Receiv’d all nations with promiscuous lust.
This nauseous brood directly did contain
The well-extracted blood of Englishmen.
Which medly canton’d in a heptarchy,
A rhapsody of nations to supply,
Among themselves maintain’d eternal wars,
And still the ladies lov’d the conquerors.
The western Angles all the rest subdu’d;
A bloody nation, barbarous and rude:
Who by the tenure of the sword possest
One part of Britain, and subdu’d the rest
And as great things denominate the small,
The conqu’ring part gave title to the whole.
The Scot, Pict, Britain, Roman, Dane, submit,
And with the English-Saxon all unite:
And these the mixture have so close pursu’d,
The very name and memory’s subdu’d:
No Roman now, no Britain does remain;
Wales strove to separate, but strove in vain:
The silent nations undistinguish’d fall,
And Englishman’s the common name for all.
Fate jumbled them together, God knows how;
What e’er they were they’re true-born English now.
The wonder which remains is at our pride,
To value that which all wise men deride.
For Englishmen to boast of generation,
Cancels their knowledge, and lampoons the nation.
A true-born Englishman’s a contradiction,
In speech an irony, in fact a fiction.
A banter made to be a test of fools,
Which those that use it justly ridicules.
A metaphor invented to express
A man a-kin to all the universe.
For as the Scots, as learned men ha’ said,
Throughout the world their wand’ring seed ha’ spread;
So open-handed England, ’tis believ’d,
Has all the gleanings of the world receiv’d.
Some think of England ’twas our Saviour meant,
The Gospel should to all the world be sent:
Since, when the blessed sound did hither reach,
They to all nations might be said to preach.
‘Tis well that virtue gives nobility,
How shall we else the want of birth and blood supply?
Since scarce one family is left alive,
Which does not from some foreigner derive
‘As a result of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 the Protestant William Prince of Orange replaced the Catholic James II on the throne of England. Not everyone was happy with this turn of events as William was a Dutchman; they objected to having a foreigner as king and extolled their own English parentage by way of comparison.
Defoe composed this satirical rejoinder as a gentle reminder to those English patriots of where their true roots lay. Worthwhille repeating out loud whenever some damn fool British politician starts complaining about the extent of immigration and how its turning the British into a mongrel race.’
…………
African Roots of the Celtish Tribes: Black Celts, Black Britons
by
Jamani
England, an Island populated nearly 50 million inhabitants, of which the majority, indeed the ruling majority are white, caucasian and purportedly of purely european stock. The image presented of the English, cradled in its notion of Englishness conjures up the image of blue eyes, blonde hair, typified by the English rose, or the archetypal fair maiden of old, and the blue-eyed boy of more modern chronology. Images akin to modern Northern europe. However behind this Scandinavian / Greek-esk romanticism we have a population overwhelming consisting of a brown eyed, dark haired inhabitants.
My aim in writing this is to challenge this politically charged iconographic self-image and its use in culturing how this population ideologizes its racial origins.
The study of English history reveals waves of colonizers and immigrants whether this is though the Romans, Vikings, Germanic tribes, the Normans etc. All depicted as white, caucasian, and at least in modern times able to be categorized as being of european stock. However, what seemingly does not find its way into print is an African presence. That is not until the 1500s with the beginning of the slave trade, where Africans are recorded as blackamoor pets, domestic servants, soldiers, and entertainers.
On a closer examination of the history of this Island we find vagueness, inconsistencies and various omissions. History is supposed to be the linear story of facts, the facts of what has gone before. Therefore if we were to walk back and reside with at least some of the indigenous population of this island we find evidence of a people diametrically opposed to those who claim current ownership of this land…,namely African people.
Over a period of at least 2000 years amongst the evidence are burial mounds, where the skeletal remains lying in a foetal position (in adoration to the womb of Mother Earth), and facing to the East run parallel with the ancient African custom of veneration of the sun (rising in the East) and elevation of the immortal soul. We have the discovery of numerous skulls where the sizes and shapes clearly denote an African phenotype and origin, artefacts identical to those found on the African continent such as pottery and jewellery, as well as identical styles of weaving cloth which are found in no other place than specific localities in Africa. Also the legacy of place names denoting the original inhabitants, as well as similarities in the phonetics of languages of non-Aryan origin.
Older text and folklore of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales often mention the arrival of Africans, and a distinct African presence, not solely as visitors, but as the original inhabitants.
We find the earliest races to inhabit the Isle were short, swarthy (black), dark haired, dark eyed, and long skulled, its language belonged to the class called hamaitic and seems to have originally come from some part of either Eastern, Northern, or Central Africaâ€, a quote typically omitted from the history books.
Indeed the notion abounds that English history begins with the arrival of the Celts. However the Celts whose racial origin cannot, or has not been truthfully qualified (outside of the parameters that support a caucasian supremacist myth) had Gods of a non-Aryan origin. Writings of Tacitus, the Roman historian mention the dark complexion of the Silures or Black Celts, and maintained that a black aboriginal race lived side by side with a white one in the British Isle in Pre-Roman times.
To give volume to the consensus of silence stemming from the modern written word, since the original African presence, there have been countless migrations from the African continent for the purpose of conquest, as explorers and colonists.
Pliny the Roman historian who first saw the Britons in the 2nd Cent AD described their complexion as Ethiopian. Under the African Emperor Septimus Severis, along with a large contingent of Roman soldiers including African soldiers and officials we have the Roman occupation of England. Those who Severis fought were known as the Maeatae (Marsh dwellers), they were Caledonni, nick-named Picti, known as Moors, or black men. The early Scots too, (whose name it is claimed is derived from Scotia an Egyptian princess) make their first appearance in history in conjunction with the Picts in 360AD when they began a series of incursions into the Roman provinces of Britain. These two nations are invariably linked in all records of the Roman conquest, with the chief Roman historian regarding them as akin in blood. Though associated primarily to the North, and to the land mass later known as Scotland evidence of their presence is amongst other places to be found in Norfolk and Cornwall
I don’t suggest that solely Africans populated this Island, but contend that as part of the original, indigenous population, and from this point onwards, then undoubtedly we were here. I write this to strike a balance, to include what has been excluded, to permit what has been omitted.
This too is supported by David Mac Ritchie in Ancient and Modern Britons, when he states that the Moors dominated Scotland as late as the times of the Saxons, and that as late as the 10th Cent, 3 provinces in Scotland were wholly black. The 700 year domination over the Iberian Peninsula and Southern France by the Moors, their bringing and transmition of civilization to various parts of europe undeniably resulted in Moorish influence and inhabitation in England, again place names and localities are replete with Moorish names, legacies, and origin
Successive conquest by the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Danes, Normans etc consistently thread through the story of the English, and should need no further mention here, apart from omissions with regard to the historical facts of their racial compositions. A quote by Author Gwyn Jones is that the Vikings were not of one pure Nordic race. Within this we have black Norsemen mentioned in the sagas like Thorstein the Black, and other Africans like Thorhall the hunter, a Viking who was the mentor and closest companion of Eric the Red, a seafarer who chartered uncharted territory. Described as a large man, strong, black, and like a giant. Based on this and beyond a racist ideology, is it beyond every stretch of the imagination to believe that some of the Viking conquerors of England were African. Among the Danes too is a noted Black presence.
Geoffrey of Monmouth described in detailed the invasion of Britain by the Saxons and the involvement of Africans in the struggle between the British and the Anglo-Saxons. With a Saxon stronghold on the East of the Island, the ruler of Britain Keredic was unable to quash a Saxon revolt, and the Saxons according to Monmouth sent for Gormund the African, the then ruler of Ireland. Faced with Gormund and the 160’000 African fleet that Gormund led into Britain, Keredic was forced to seek refuge, and subsequently forced to flee.
Amongst other races, Moorish mercenaries were accrued by the Normans to assist in the Norman conquest, and as previously stated the 700 year Moorish domination on the Iberian peninsula and Southern France should at least permit the possibility of African genealogy within the Normans.
Therefore from the 6th cent to the 12th cent with the arrival of the Germanics, Normans and various other tribes over this period, we have the demise of the original Britons, and any other evidence of indigenous peoples who were not of the proposed Aryan race. Subjugated and driven to extinction by these eventual conquerors, or due to this influx we have intermixing of these races until this evidence is eventually almost bred out. What we then have by the 13th cent is the eventual unification of this Island under one banner, the merger of the peoples, and the creation of the English. Over the centuries this creation is idealized and Aryanized into the notion of Englishness, and this notion is reinforced in the history books and into the minds of the people and as an idealized self-image.
An image used as a political tool from the 16th cent onwards. A time when the African presence is once again prevalent, notably through the Atlantic slave trade in order to justify the social, cultural and economic exploitation of a people to uphold a notion of racial superiority.
The propounded ideology of English history is a falsification of history, one that negates the swaths of people who if not were here first, at least form part of the early presence here, and people who through migration, warfare, and general movement across the land, along with the inevitable infusion of blood and genealogy are part of its make-up. There are countless other facts documenting the African presence on this Island, all throughout its history, however to discover them it appears that one has to look deeper and search further, seriously narrowing the answer as to what threat or challenge to history does inclusion and serious discussion on this information pose.
http://www.ligali.org/forums/index.php?showtopic=307
David Mac Ritchie – ‘Ancient and Modern Britons’ (vol 1+2)
Ahmed Ali, Ibrahim Ali – ‘The Black Celts, An Ancient African Civilization in Ireland and Britain’
Ivan Van Sertima – ‘African Presence in Early europe’
J.A.Rogers – ‘Nature Knows No Colour Line’
Gerald Massey – ‘Ancient Egypt Light of the World’ (depending on the reprint this might come in 2 volumes)
Albert Churchward – ‘Signs and Symbols of Primordial Man’
” Within this we have black Norsemen mentioned in the sagas like Thorstein the Black, and other Africans like Thorhall the hunter, a Viking who was the mentor and closest companion of Eric the Red, a seafarer who chartered uncharted territory. Described as “ a large man, strong, black, and like a giant.â€
————————————————————————————–
You forgot about Halfdan the Black! But seriously these claims have no root in reality. All you have seen are the English translations of the sagas, where the word/nickname “Svartr/Svarti” have been translated directly to black. This is wrong and misleading. The word used to describe black people in Old Norse were “blà ” meaning blue, while “svartr” meaning black were used to describe people with dark hair and beard.
“The examples of svartr that have been culled from the materials examined reveal that in contrast to blár, svartr is very commonly used as a byname; examples include Ãn svarti (LaxdÅ“la saga), Bárðr svarti (Njáls saga), Illugi svarti (Egils saga), and Þórarinn svarti (Eyrbyggja saga). Presumably, these bynames describe in some way aspects of the physical appearance of the person in question, most likely the color of the person’s facial hair or eyes.”
The Color Blue in Old Norse-Icelandic Literature
Kirsten Wolf
http://www.dur.ac.uk/medieval.www/sagaconf/wolf.htm
Svartr (Icelandic), swarthy (English), schwarz (Germanic), obviously share common linguistic roots and they all mean the colour black in all those respective languages. Go study the etymology of those terms and their use.
There is no European language in which swarthy or svartr means black beard. The word means black and when used to describe a man simply means black man. It does not mean BLACK BEARD!
As such your argument is a disjointed rambling contradictory thesis typical of the unschooled.
Jahdey
If you actually read the link i posted above you will see the differences between the colour blue and black in Old Norse. They are described throughly. The Norse had a own word for a black man, “blà maor” meaning litterary blue man. Africa was known as “blà land”, meaning blue land. There are NO examples of black people described only as “svartr” in the sagas. However a “blà maor” can be svartr as in evil or ugly.
No Mats, you are floored again.
Kirsten Wolf’s article had this line:
“….. ‘the Icelandic word svartur which nowadays means ‘black’ seems at this period to have referred mainly to a brown-black colour, as when it is used to describe horses.”
Mr Mats, so after having read this line from your authority is it still logical to insist that when Svartur is used for horses, it means black-brown horses, but when used for men it means black beards???
You must learn to read between the lines and use your critical thinking faculties.
Jahdey
Again it is obvious that you have not read the entire article. Further down she states:
“It is worth noting, for instance, that blár (and not svartr) is used to refer to black people, although blámenn can be svartir if they are evil or possess devilish traits. ”
This is taken from Halfdan the Black’s saga in Old Norse:
“Þar óx upp Hálfdan ok var brátt mikill ok sterkr ok svartr á hár; hann var kallaðr Hálfdan svarti.”
Translated it means something like:
There Halfdan grew up and he was soon big, strong and black haired; he was called Halfdan the Black.
And I never said that svartr means black beard, I said that people with black hair or beard often were described as or nicknamed svartr/svarti. Atleast that was my point, but my main language is Norwegian so I apologise for any misunderstandings that may have brought.
Mats
Mats
Perhaps you are just too young or perhaps you are being disingenious but it matters not to me.
In your language Norwegian which you claim to be fluent in, (a language descent from Icelandic) “svarti” means black, not “black beards” “nor evil nor devils” as you falsely claim.
In Norwegian “svart folks” means black people (reference Africans) not black haired Norwegians.
Why then are you so specious with your logic?
See the example below:
Norwegian
Begrepet “svart folk” vanligvis refererer til en rasistisk gruppe mennesker med mørk hud farge, men begrepet har ogsÃ¥ blitt brukt til Ã¥ kategorisere en rekke…
English Translation
The term “black people” usually refers to a racial group of human beings with dark skin color, but the term has also been used to categorise a number of …
Yes in Norwegian and probabily modern Icelandic svart is used to describe black people. But Norwegian and Icelandic(which is very similar but not completely the same as Old Norse) has evolved in 1000 years. I don’t see how that is so hard to understand.
Maybe this will make things clear to you:
“In the middle ages Muslims were considered as bad or even worse than heathens, because they worshipped Muhammad, who was an Antichrist to Christians. There are not many episodes in Heimskringla that concern Muslims, or ‘blámenn’ as they are called in the sagas. King Sigurd Jorsalafar is said to have fought heathens in Spain on his way to Jerusalem. He plundered with his crew on the island of Formentera, where there was a ‘herr mikill heiðinna blámanna’. Sigurd’s men win the battle of course (Msona chs. V-VI). Heimskringla does not mention anything about Muslim beliefs, but obviously there was no need to clarify the evilness of the blámenn to the audience since the word ‘blár’ reveals that these men were very different from the heroic King Sigurd and his men. Even though blár means ‘blue,’ in this case it signifies ‘black.’ These ‘blue men’ lived in Spain or the south Mediterranean. ‘Blámenn’ refers not only to literally black men, but also to Arabs and Moors. The use of the term ‘blámenn’ indicates that the writer wanted to stress that they were of different ethnic origin than the Norse people. We should also remember, too, that in the fornaldarsögur the term ‘blámenn’ refers to earthly creatures of evil (e.g. ‘blámenn ok berserkir’ Lindow, 1995, 13-14). This ethnic implication was probably more important to the intended audience of the saga than any, rightly omitted, information about the religious beliefs of the blámenn.”
Categorizing ‘Otherness’ in Heimskringla
Sirpa Aalto
(University of Joensuu)