When racism hides itself under the pretence of ‘historical accuracy’
When ‘historical accuracy’ is used as a cover for racism and excusing the lack of diversity in modern historical-based media and my hackles get raised, I call bullshit and proceed to give a small history lesson on people of colour representation in late Georgian England.
This post was originally written on May 23rd of this year, as a reply to a Tumblr comment on a post I wrote about the series Gentleman Jack, where I mentioned that my only beef with it was the (ahistorical) lack of people of colour representation.
The comment
As you can see, it took me a couple of days to gather my wits about and provide a non-angry, in good faith type of answer. And as all good historians, I also wanted to be able to point at credible sources rather than just go the ‘I’m a historian, I know what I’m talking about’ card, so had to do some research. After all, late Georgian England is neither my period nor location of expertise. And although it is an area of interest for me, people of colour history is also not my area of expertise.
Now, you might be wondering why I’m sharing this, as a reply to a Tumblr comment about a 2019-22 series seems to be inconsequential. However, I disagree. You can find a lot of these comments flying about in circles where historical-based media are of interest. Comments that argue that having a good people of colour representation in said media is not ‘historically accurate’ and due to lack of awareness, people are agreeing with them, perhaps not realising that they are only perpetuating a racist (and incorrect) point of view. So here I am, sharing my thoughts on the matter, in the form of a reply to said comment (and a reply to their later ‘rebuttal’).
Note: I have made some changes to the answer, to make it more easily readable and corrected spelling errors or word order, but otherwise, the below is my exact reply.
My reply
So many things to reply to your comment, so little time.
Little aside before I start: as a historian who loves academic research, my first instinct is to go to my trusty library/archive catalogue and look for academic sources instead of doing a google search (though I did do that after, which from what I saw of the results, is probably where you got your own numbers). Now, fair enough, not everyone has access to this, though I'll add that the books I used for this reply are available to the general public so would be available in any local public library. But then, google is easy isn't it?
That being said, although sources used in the various online articles that cite the numbers you mention are sometimes dubious or at least wouldn't hold up to academical scrutiny (or weren't available at all any more), for once, the number wasn't actually totally factually wrong. However, and it's quite important, it only represents the number of the Black population (African/West Indies ancestry), not the one for people of colour as a whole. Which was my first impression, seeing it in your comment, and my research confirmed.
Furthermore, as historian David Olusoga mentions in his book (Black and British: A Forgotten History, 2017, p.85) “the size of the Black British population in the age of slavery is a mystery that lies beyond the capacity of historians to solve.” This is because we can only use the contemporary estimates, which vary widely from 3000 for the whole country to 20,000 within the metropolis only to 40,000 for the whole country. The exact number is impossible for us to know, only that they were present in consequent enough numbers to be noticed everywhere in the country, though yes, in greater number in big cities like London.
However, again, those numbers do not represent all people of colour! Have you forgotten your UK history? English East India company (EIC) ring any bell? The precursor to the British Raj? Asia? India in particular? No?
Now, as historian Rozina Visram confirms in her book (Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History, 2002, pp.3-44), we have the same issue with numbers here. Records were already not that great in late Georgian era with their white population, it's not going to get better for their people of colour population. If anything, it'll be worse. But Indian professionals (lawyers, teachers, etc.) were very popular in big cities, English families from all over the country coming back from India came with their many Indian servants, only some of which are recorded to having been sent back to India later on. White men (often, but not always, EIC men) came back with their Indian wives/mistresses. And let's not forget all the Asian seamen (Indian 'lascars', but also Chinese) that worked for the EIC and arrived in the thousands every year in the UK. Some were only temporarily there until they could find a way home, like the ayahs (sort of nanny that looked after the family/children only while on the voyage from India to the UK), but some stayed there more permanently.
In both cases though, any official record tend to forget the mixed race children or classify them apart from their non-white parent. And this brings me nicely to the specific case of Anne Lister. Had you read the few comments made before your so 'helpful' one, you would've seen that Lister's first lover was Eliza Raine, the illegitimate half-Indian daughter of an EIC surgeon, that she met at boarding school. So your argument of, what was it? Ah yes “not unexpected to see so few people of colour appearing in a circle of what was a snapshot of a predominantly white and wealthy privileged society sadly” is kinda proven wrong. Plus in such circles, it would have been even more probable for Anne to have met/seen people of colour, especially Indian, as servants, as the wealthy were apparently exceedingly 'fond' of them, as Visram informed me. Also, Anne is shown travelling. Port cities were notorious for their people of colour population, which both Visram and Olusoga mention.
So this was the history lesson saying: there were more people of colour in late Georgian Britain than you think there were! That being said, in this context, of me saying that having only one people of colour within the whole 1st season of the series was disappointing. Although historically improbable if not completely inaccurate, my main gripe about it, is that representation is important, regardless of historical accuracy, and I used the historical accuracy bit as a way to drive home that it wasn't even a good excuse. Should the cast have been entirely people of colour? Well, personally I would've loved that! But that's also not what I was saying. I'm saying that adding people of colour as, at the minimum, background characters, wouldn't have made me stop suspending my disbelief and it would have been a good choice to promote historical accuracy and representation to today's people of colour community members, who's history is always disproportionally hidden away or completely erased, by the very people who promote arguments like the one you gave, which are racist, regardless of if that was the intention or not, as they promote racist message and propaganda.
So there you have it. Also a little caveat, people of colour history in Britain, although an area of interest to me, is not my area of expertise. Which is why I'm referring to other historians and their own very good research instead of using primary sources. I do not have that kind of time or spoons for a reply to a comment on my post. But replying anyway, as even if I don't think you'll read it or that it will change your mind view, it was important to me to publicly (so to speak anyway) remedy the inaccuracies of your own comment.
Bibliography
All of which I recommend, very interesting reads, even if not all had the information I was looking for specifically.
Bygott, David. Black and British. Oxford: University Press, 1992.
Fisher, Michael Herbert. Counterflows to Colonialism: Indian Travellers and Settlers in Britain, 1600-1857. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2004.
Nasta, Susheila. Asian Britain: A Photographic History. Westbourne Press, 2013.
Olusoga, David. Black and British: A Forgotten History. London: Pan Books, 2017.
———. Black and British: An Illustrated History. London: Macmillan Children’s Books, 2021.
Visram, Rozina. Asians in Britain: 400 Years of History. London: Pluto Press, 2002.
———. Ayahs, Lascars, and Princes: Indians in Britain, 1700-1947. Routledge Revivals. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2015.
The follow up
I honestly had not expected a reply, yet here we were. I was not surprised by the content of their rebuttal, and although I did not reply to them directly (I blocked them, as I did not have the spoons for further back and forth with someone who wasn’t actually interested in an honest discussion), I did publish the answer (and the previous one) publicly on my Tumblr.
My own rebuttal
There are several items that need to be replied to, so for ease I'm going to colour sections and reply to them individually:
Green section:
“Historians you quote to reinforce your response also rely on very dubious and historically questionable data to arrive at their conclusions”
Two things about this:
- I literally mention that the historical sources of the time have a dubious accuracy regarding numbers. Doesn't change the fact that it gives us an idea of how things were perceived at the time. I mean technically all sources could be dubious in one way or another due to the biases of the writer and the reasons why it was written in the first place!
- What is dubious about these sources? I'll freely admit I didn't spend much time vetting every single source (David Olusoga's bibliography is 20 pages long and Rozina Visram's select bibliography is 21). But the 2 sources mentioned by Olusoga regarding the numbers seem perfectly fine to me? Here they are (16 and 17):
- cont. So there is one original source from a periodical and one secondary source. The secondary source is from historian James Walvin. Now yes, the n word is present in the full title, but need I remember you that a. it was published in the 70s and b. you'll unfortunately see that world often in contemporary sources of the time covered by that book. Hopefully any revised edition would've changed the word in the title, but that shouldn't be the only deciding factor to the credibility of a source. Here's a screenshot of what I found about him from the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Edinburgh, the link to which is available by clicking here:
- cont. So there is one original source from a periodical and one secondary source. The secondary source is from historian James Walvin. Now yes, the n word is present in the full title, but need I remember you that a. it was published in the 70s and b. you'll unfortunately see that world often in contemporary sources of the time covered by that book. Hopefully any revised edition would've changed the word in the title, but that shouldn't be the only deciding factor to the credibility of a source. Here's a screenshot of what I found about him from the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Edinburgh, the link to which is available by clicking here:
- cont. What is dubious about this? All things considered, at this, admittedly fleeting, first glance Walvin seems like a respected and knowledgeable expert in his field. Visram's sources for the pieces I mention seem similarly trust worthy:
- cont. What is dubious about this? All things considered, at this, admittedly fleeting, first glance Walvin seems like a respected and knowledgeable expert in his field. Visram's sources for the pieces I mention seem similarly trust worthy:
- cont. So here, primary sources or older secondary sources. Not going to check each author, re time, but nothing stands out as particularly dubious to me.
Orange section:
“Taught me one lesson, the old saying that there are lies, damned lies and statistics is very much true”
So, you bring out the (in)famous quote, which, to quote wiki, “is a phrase describing the persuasive power of statistics to bolster weak arguments, ‘one of the best, and best-known’ critiques of applied statistics. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.” Well, I don't disagree that statistics can be misapplied and/or twisted to serve an argument.
However, neither I, nor either of the historians I quoted, mention statistics anywhere. There is literally not enough data to get statistics, much less accurate ones, and that's a whole point I mentioned, about the lack of data....! So either your reading comprehension is piss poor (we are, after all on a hellsite famous for it), or you're being purposefully obtuse.
Dark blue section:
“Google was not my primary source of data”
Okay, my apologies for the assumption. But then what were your primary sources? You conveniently left that important part out. So, frankly, it sounds like you pulled the information out of your arse. Or, indeed, google. Like, I'm all for being proved wrong. I don't know everything, I'm humble enough to accept when I got it wrong, but you have to give me something to work with. Just saying I'm wrong without backing it up, is just you blowing through a bagpipe.
Light blue section:
“For many it is an easily accessible medium for garnering information and even on some occasions fact”
Yes, I was perhaps a bit glib in my treatment of you using google as your primary source. And sure, it can definitely be a useful tool.
However, that doesn't excuse the lack of fact checking that google alone cannot do. Especially with its enshittification and prominence of its horrible gen AI tool... You can't expect to find correct information within the first few results of google any more. Especially not for topics like this one, that are notoriously under represented or inaccurately portrayed.
Pink section:
“The world of academia too often places itself about the masses and practices a form of cultural apartheid.”
The world of academia, I will freely admit, has a lot of wrong in it. The fact it's largely an old white man's world only one of them. And yes, it can definitely be elitist. However, in my experience, most historians themselves want to share their knowledge with the world, generally even for free. The elitism generally comes from academic institutions and administrations and publishers. Though I'll say that, at least within the UK, university libraries are open to the general public for membership, and universities offer quite a lot of free courses also available to anyone. To say it practices a 'cultural apartheid'.... Well! I doubt the Black victims of the apartheid in South Africa would appreciate the comparison. And it's telling that you're using a term that is only used for the historical segregation and discrimination of Black people in South Africa.
Your racism is showing, dear.
The omissions:
You’ll also notice the conspicuous absence of an answer to my argument within the context of Gentleman Jack and Anne Lister, which were the main reason this all started: its lack of representation of people of colour. Take from that what you will.
Afterword
This is a long post, and I congratulate you if you managed to get through it all. I tried to make it both concise and covering everything that needed to be covered. This would probably not get a passing grade, should I have submitted it as an assignment, but then, as much as I’m sure some of you would appreciate a more academical read, this wasn’t the point. I hope at least, that I managed to convey why the pervasion of using ‘historical accuracy’ as an excuse to not have people of colour representation in historical-based media is an issue and should be taken to task when faced with it.
Reply via email
Post published on Friday, 20th June 2025
Post last updated 1 week, 2 days ago