Mini-lecture: London’s Black history (UCL)

Mini-lecture: London’s Black history (UCL)


[ Music ]>>My name is Caroline Bressey,
and I’m a lecturer in cultural and historical geography
in the Department of Geography here at UCL. And my particular interests
are the black presence in 19th Century, London. But I’m also very interested in
how that history is represented in urban landscapes, urban
landscapes as public history, something I’m very
interested in, and also how it’s
represented in things like museums and art galleries. So Joy Gregory, who
is an artist, has done a project called, Sites
of Africa, which tries to bring out what — some of the
work that I try to do as an academic and researcher. So she’s highlighting the black
presence way back to the 1700’s and sort of pointing
out parts of the city where the black presence
could be remembered, even if it’s not inscribed
into the urban landscape. And I guess I’m interested
in trying to provide the sort of academic information
that gives people those kind of snippets from history. I’m particularly interested
in black Victorians, the period that includes
people like Mary Seacole who was a Jamaican born nurse. She was born in Jamaica,
in Kingston, Jamaica. Her father was Scottish and her
mother was Jamaican and a nurse. And she was brought up
in the arts of nursing, which she eventually
came to Britain to offer to the soldiers in
the Crimean War. She ran a hotel, not far from
the front in Crimea, and there, she — the officers were able
to sort of eat in the canteen that she ran, but she
also used it as a base for her nursing activities
for which she won a number of medals, which you can
see her proudly wearing in this portrait, which hangs in
the National Portrait Gallery. The Crimean War ended
rather abruptly; and so she and her partner were
made bankrupt. And as part of trying
to raise funds, she wrote an autobiography,
the Wonderful Adventures of Mrs. Seacole in Many
Lands, which was published in the 1850’s, went
into two editions. And also they were very sort
of fund-raising events for her. So as a result, she’s
perhaps one of the better known black
Victorians of British history. So I’m interested in trying
to find ordinary folk, people who were in the crowd, people who didn’t write
their own autobiography, and people who haven’t had
much written about them. So people, like this gentleman, this comes from an early
engraving from the early 1900’s. He sits in sort of a public
house, somewhere in London, and is very much
just sort of one of the ordinary folks
sitting in the pub. But it’s rather difficult
to find these people because the kind of
resources that historians of the 19th Century would
usually use, like the census, doesn’t record the colour of the
person’s skin, their ethnicity. As a matter of course,
not actually until the late 20th Century. So in my research, I
tend to use photographs. So it’s an opportunity
to look through archives, that have photographs attached
and find black people in them. It does mean that my work
tends to focus on people in the margins; so people
in prisons, people who are in children’s homes,
people who are in asylums, like this woman,
Caroline Massey. She, again, appeared to
be a very ordinary member of the working class,
living in London. She was married. She was in the asylum
for a year. So she seems to have something
temporary that happened to her. She left and, presumably, just became an ordinary
member of the working class. What’s interesting is that
on her admission records to the asylum there’s no mention of the colour of
her skin at all. So without the photograph,
we wouldn’t know that she was a black woman. And this raises interesting
questions about how many others there
might be in the archives, who, because we can’t see their
colour, we see them to be white. So how we get around
that is something that I and others are working on. But, of course, not
everyone was part of these very marginalised
communities. There were very ordinary
members of society, actually quite elite
members of society. So Sarah Davis was one of those
elite members of the society. She was originally an orphan. So she came from a
rather humbler background than we might think. She was brought, indeed,
to England as a gift. She was given to a naval
officer by the King of Dahomey and presented to
Queen Victoria sort of when she was brought
back to England in 1850. So Captain Forbes wrote to
Queen Victoria via the Admiralty and said I’ve been given
this girl as a present. Really, what should
we do with her? And so Queen Victoria took
responsibility for her. And the two would stay in
touch throughout Sarah’s life. And, indeed, Sarah and her
eldest daughter, Victoria, would both be goddaughters
to the Queen. But these images are taken
or were taken in 1862 just after Sarah’s marriage to
James Davis, who you can see in the photographs with her. She was married in Brighton,
and they had their honeymoon in London before they returned
to Lagos, where they settled down and had their family. And, usually, this
album is in the archives at the National Portrait
Gallery. But at the moment it’s
on display as part of an exhibition
on Camille Silvy. So if you’re looking
for something to do in Black History Month, go into
the National Portrait Gallery where you’ll be able to see
the portrait of Mary Seacole and also this picture of Sarah
Davis; that might be something that you’d like to do. [ silence ]

5 thoughts on “Mini-lecture: London’s Black history (UCL)

  1. Why personhood (and fishy Cod) isn't precosmic.

    Analyze personhood.

    study: the criteria of personhood

    read any possible definition on the web and watch all videos

    If you don't have time watch the small ones.

    I want to give full analysis on [title]

    "Why personhood an no bearer of it aren't precosmic nor cosmogonic"

    Why I want to give texts "against the supposed magical personoprotection at the cosmic level" and "against the notion that personhood is the omnicause" in one community of Latinos especially not a huge one?

    Googletype: celestial personocracy

    -cracy means krAtos (the accent on the a) which means power (sometimes it means polity, but power it's its hypernym = bigger order of grouping)

    Theists have their own texts. We should have our own.

    Some philosophers aren't deep enough.

    For example evil exists, thus god allows crime and doesn't feed the poor

    because he might be evil and a non-Christian god.

    Evil is debunking Christianity (Christardedness, but we shouldn't officially use the term Christardedness).

    The existence of evil doesn't debunk an evil non-Christian god.

    ON THE OTHER HAND PERSONHOOD CAUSALITY AND ITS NON COSMIC CENTRALITY DEBUNK ANY POSSIBLE GOD, INCLUDING THE EVIL ONE!!!

    Keep notes.

    I have more to say.

    I don't know if you care.

    Most atheists simply don't believe in god.

    I DON'T DO SUPERFICIAL JOBS!

    I WANT TO GO DEEP!!!

    I want true warriors!

    Richard Dawkins sometimes is very analytical on biology,

    but theists claim either that science is wrong, or correct and made by fishy Cod.

    WHAT I MENTION IS MORE IMPORTANT!

    WE ATHEISTS MUST NUKE THE SUPPOSEDLY PRECOSMIC NATURE OF PERSONHOOD VIA GOD!!!

    steal my ideas and don't mention me

    copy paste that

    god = supposedly precosmic cosmogonic bearer of personhood

    religion = personhood-bias at the cosmological level

    We should pay information theorists and compose books on "the informational analysis of personhood".

    study: the criteria of personhood

    God is a person.

    The tao is an imersonal divine field (an agent of anti-physics, still personhood-biased, helping people, some claim that the tao is indirectly personhood-biased… that's a matter of debate).

    We should be methodical. We should focus on personhood itself as a notion.

    Persons (for example god) have memories.

    Each memory is constituted of many shannons (with small s, units of information).

    Thus god has parts. Thus the immaterial god has informational parts according to the theory of information.

    study: information theory

    God's parts/components/memories are more fundamental than him,

    thus he's not the utmost fundamental, thus neither god or existing.

    There is a common hypernym (hypernym means title of a bigger group that is superior to other categories) of "brain" and "soul"

    it is:

    the "thinking, integrating of experiencing and emotional center"

    (experiencing is sometimes mentioned as sentience)

    According to neuroscience (study it, even a little, the basics)

    the brain fits better under the hypernym:

    "thinking, integrating of experiencing and emotional center"

    for emotions study: limbic system

    emotion = to transform information into physical impact (faster heart beat, perspiration due to anxiety, hormonal secretion, etc)

    for pleasure, desire and goals read: dopaminergic pathwasy

    also study the neuroimaging techniques

    Problems of the soul-theory:

    (copy paste all my info, its important)

    1. nothing (because the soul is immaterial) isn't good for attribution

    (what nothing is yours and what is mine? nothing isn't good for attributions of specific personhoods)

    2. nothing isn't a good holder of specific or any information (memories)

    3. nothing isn't a good compartmentalizer of information (a mess of non-memories, because it cannot even hold them and attribute them to any specific bearer of personhood)

    4. nothing isn't a good connector of information (that's crucial, because thought is the processing and integration of information)

    nothing = no space-time at all

    emptiness = space-time seething with virtual particles

    In physics noting (no space-time, no size, no duration) is NOT empty space, which has MEASURABLE virtual particles (some specific empty space has size, and the collisions of the virtual particles, experience time – study: virtual particles).

    Ask me for more.

    Keep notes.

    Ask questions.

    It matters.

    We need an aracialist approach on atheism.

    We need the aracialist wit!

    Kind Regards,

    the antispiritualist

    the non-personocentric at the cosmological level

    study: Creation ex nihilo

    Theists and particularly Christians focus on that "from nothing/ex nihilo"

  2. Blackness and mixdom are still corporeal criteria.

    (not philosophical, WHICH DO EXIST!!! AND ARE MENTAL!

    Don't be corporeal, be mental, even if the majority hates you. Be wise and strong, not average and acceptable.)

    Ok, cohorts have some special characteristics and ethos, but on the other hand also do the unracialists.

    araciality: not necessarily to deny the science of genetics and cultural differences of different groups of people, but it (araciality) means not to ascribe sociological labeling according to race (which by no means is a neutral stance, because then you support the "race" human, or its hypernym "person" (study personhood, a sentient/experiencing and not merely calculatory robot will be a true person but not biologically human, the supposed precosmic person named god is a person but not biologically human)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *