Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by tarkin2 1694 days ago
Between statistics and the description of the man, I find it difficult to be as sure as you are.
1 comments

It wasn't until 1786 that the British government first employed one of the (relatively few) black men in a minor role, yet I'm supposed to believe based on a contemporary reading of this text (before "black" was nearly widely used to mean what it does today) that this (at least 3rd generation) British professor at Cambridge was black?

Highly doubtful. I'm not sure what statistics you are basing off of.

Here's a more reputable source than me:

> An account apparently purports him to be "a little short man, of black complexion, and fat", though we have been unable to locate any specific contemporary source. However, such words even if used do not necessarily indicate he is of black-African descent, as the term can refer also to Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, Arabs, Ethiopians, or Jews. Jonathan Swift uses the expression "a tall, thin, very black man, like a Spaniard or Jew." In the given context it is almost certainly intended as a slight against Michell by painting him as something he was likely not. The Royal Society famously refused election to Jamaican scientist Francis Williams (1702-1770), on account of his complexion, and it almost certainly would not have elected a black man as early as 1760. Moses Da Costa became the first Jew elected to the Society in 1736, and a second was elected in 1747; the first female was not elected until 1945. The earliest black individual we could determine that attended Queens College, Cambridge was an American, Alexander Crummell, who graduated 1853.

> Here's a more reputable source than me:

Care to give a citation?

Okay, on second glance I appear to give undue weight to things with footnotes. https://www.nndb.com/people/607/000107286/

The reasoning in general makes sense, and the evidence they bring to bear re: Swift is somewhat convincing to me.

The main text of that entry appears to be a slightly-reworked version of the public-domain 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, but the Google Books image doesn't have the footnote you quoted. I'm guessing it's original to that NNDB site, which probably started with the encyclopedia like Wikipedia did.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Encyclopaedia_Brita...