3 ms·

I was wondering about that. Is there a way to verify? It would be really interesting if he were, and it would be equally interesting if there was some way to sh

• monknomo 5y ago
  dark hair, brown eyes and and something around a tan would probably constitute "black" Swedes were described as swarthy by Ben Franklin, so the conception of what black and swarthy are don't really line up to the modern meanings
• whimsicalism 5y ago
  > What did a black complexion mean back then? Black people were very rare in Britain at the time, this term was used very broadly for people like Italians, Iberian descent, jews, etc. I doubt there is any way to show "conclusively" that he wasn't, but I would say the evidence is pretty strongly against. Someone I quoted in another reply provide more reasoning on what that evidence is.
• tablespoon 5y ago
  A good place to start would be: 1. How would an English clergyman in the first half of the 1700s typically describe someone who was of African descent? This appears to be the guy who wrote the description: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cole_(antiquary) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cole_(antiquary). My intuition is that the wouldn't just use "black," but would probably use something more specific, like "African" or "negro." 2. At that time, would a "black" person (in the modern sense) have been accepted into the kinds of positions John Michell had (like being a member of the Royal Society), with so little comment on his race?
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]