Posted on 06/13/2004 2:15:19 PM PDT by blam
From Wikipedia:
Othello's race
Although the play is very much concerned with racial difference, the protagonist's specific race is not clearly indicated by Shakespeare. Othello is referred to as a "Moor"; for Elizabethan Englishmen, this term could refer to the Arabs of North Africa, or to the people we would now call "black" (that is, people of sub-Saharan African descent). In his other plays, Shakespeare had previously depicted an Arabic Moor (in The Merchant of Venice) and a black Moor (in Titus Andronicus). In Othello, however, the references to the character's physical features do not settle the question of which race Shakespeare envisaged (Othello's line "Haply for I am black" does not help, since 'black' could simply mean 'swarthy' for Elizabethans). Popular consensus among average readers and theatre directors today leans towards the "black" interpretation, and Arabic Othellos have been rare.
Presently "black" in reference to skin color in Britain refers not only just to Africans but mostly to light-skinned Indians and Pakistanis.
quite a resurrection of a 2 year old post!
Whatever various were there, they certainly had to be localized, concentrated, because, I, too, am of Scot descendance and I'm about as white as you can ever find anywhere, without locating an albino. And my Scot grandfather had exactly the same complexion and coloring, which is quite normal from the area of Scotland from where he originated, as did his ancestors for many centuries prior to his birth.
Yes, and some people even in the U.S. refer to Italians as "blacks." Many Italians prior to large numbers of Spanish moving in, were brunette and pale and some even blond. Some Italians still are! South Italy is mostly all dark skinned and dark haired, however, particularly Sicily.
A tangent...
An Arabic Moor would never refer to himself as black..
It is (and was far before the time of Shakespeare) a clear distinction..
Arabs were conducting slave raids into sub-saharan africa for thousands of years..
Only a black Moor would refer to himself as such..
Additionally, there is the clue, "Haply I am black"..
While black may mean swarthy in Elizabethan english, the term "haply" constitutes chance or fortune (destiny? Circumstance? Coincidence?)
As an arab among meditteraneans in Venice, he would probably not have stood out enough to cause comment, whereas a black general would have..
However, early Greece was also greatly far more fair than they became later, same as Italy...even to general view, the very sculptures from early Greece shows Grecians with appearances far more similar to Northern Europeans than to the Middle East, etc. Same with, for example, Ramses I in Egypt: very tall, prominent European features, red hair.
I read earlier on FR somewhere written that someone said they would not be surprised that when the First Emporer of China's tomb was eventually explored, they would not be surprised if a tall, red haired man was found there.
Most of the Mediterranean seems to have been originally populated by what we'd call today "Europeans" -- tall, flat and high foreheads, long noses, many blond and red haired individuals. They seem to have been largely supplanted over time by shorter, darker persons and the mix has resulted in what and who we see in the Mediterranean today.
If I posted the same thing two years ago my Alzheimer's must be worse than I thought. But I don't think this is possible as I was just quoting wikipedia and I'm not sure they even existed two years ago. Othello came to mind as a famous (if fictional) Moor, who is always played by or as a black man.
Most, if not all, of such a unit would have been berbers who are relatively light skinned and who have an eye color range that goes from brown to blue and even green. They are not Arabs and they are not southern African blacks.
But they were darker than the average Briton, leading to the term "black." You'll find similar references to darker-skinned folks throughout northern Europe.
Correct. They are not Bantu.
Everyone knows how wild and clannish the Scots of the 1st century were--and still are some say. The reason the two Roman walls were built across the Island was because the Romans decided it was safer/easier to wall them out than to try and conquer them.
That being said, how likely was it that occupying Roman soldiers would have been allowed to take land and live in peace once the Roman armies dissolved/withdrew? There was never any peace among the clans, so why would they tolerate outside interlopers?
And I don't see any outsider and former foe being inducted into a clan, even if he'd gotten a maiden with child. More likely, he'd have been killed.
"He believes that DNA tests of locals could reveal genetic links with modern-day north Africans, while skeletons of Romans found in the area might contain telltale clues to their childhood origins. "
This is probably true with any unit which can be identified as to place and origin in the roman area...
"Hardly a word of Latin entered the English language in those days; modern English words of Latin origin mostly came in during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. But it seems clear that the Roman (and perhaps African) blood still flows in the vicinity of Hadrian's Wall. "
There is a big reason for this - the langauge spoken in britain during the roman period, p-celtic (modern welsh bretonish cornish) was eradicated from most of modern england during the germanic invasinn/colonization taht began in the 4th cetnruy progressively scrubbed the celt language (though not dna), including place-names, from almost everywhere but wales, cornwales, and cumbria.
There are some words in welsh that are very similar to the latin word, 'pont' = bridge, so there are probably some loanwords there, as well as indo-european words of similar origina (was aur (gold in welsh and roman, Ore in modern english) a loanword or did the indo-european root survive into p-celtic?
Thre precursion of old english was spoken by pretty much no one in roman britain except the german soldiers in the army. Old english as a spoken language in daily life in britain doesn't appear until the romans were gone.
Modern names derived from roman soldiers names is unlikely, the saxon's brough their own names to most of england.
The idea that enough of the 500 or so members of a Roman unit would have (a)survived and (b)remained in the area to put down genealogical roots having an identifiable DNA today is interesting but somewhat farfetched.
Especially since the mother's DNA is the primary way of identifying lineal descendants.
well you have to remember there was military presence for centuries, and soldiers dropping their DNA in the brothel and wife pot, retiring, etc, all during this time, so even if when legions retreated suriving retirees went south (who knows, possibly not), the DNA impact over generations of mixing would remain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.