Cecil, I have been reading the Straight Dope for more than 20 years now but this is the first article I’ve felt confident enough to comment on. While it is true, who really cares if Beethoven had african ancestory,http://www.straightdope.com/columns/050527.html, I think it should be mentioned that there really are members of our society who seem to take some sort of twisted pleasure down playing the acievements of certain minorities, while at the same time accepting and modifying some great achievements and claiming them as their own. The truth is, there are actually coins in existance from the time of Hannibal that bear his image, and it in no way appears European.
At the time of his writings, Joel Agustus Rogers was merely stating what could have been the unacceptable truth, knowingly putting his life on the line in the process. Others have gone on to expound on what he was saying, an example being that the unmentioned president is Dwight D. Eisenhower, whos mother, in photographs appears to have black features,http://www.eisenhowerbirthplace.org/family.htm. In the Virginia town he was born there were two “Links” families, a white one, and a black one. The question is, which one did his maternal grandfather come from? Eisenhower’s maternal grandmother isn’t suspect. Her lineage is lily-white as far back as you can go. But the guy who married Eisenhower’s grandmother, had a child with her, then disappeared, is the one. Two other items about this case. Interviews made during the 50s uncovered some very old people who long remembered referring to Eisenhower’s mother as “that black Links gal.” These people asserted there was never any question about what she was. And finally, the most stunning piece of evidence: a picture of Eisenhower’s mother on her wedding day. This picture is included in Eisenhower’s auto-biography. This woman would not have been able to eat in restaurants anywhere in the South before the end of segregation.
Other writings also assert that Vice-President Hannibal Hamlin, was known to have “black blood” in him. In addition, Alexander Hamilton is said to be the son of a woman, Rachel Fawcett, who had “mixed Blood”.
Again, at this late date, at least for those of us duelly educated by the straight dope, who cares? We all must come to accept each other and live together on this planet. This should bring us all together. Yes, Cecil, you are my 50th cousin, check out the concept of pedigree collapse. Can’t argue with numbers.
Beethoven, for shizzle.
It’s trivial that Hannibal was not European, since his home continent was Africa. And it’s only slightly less remarkable to say that he wasn’t Caucasian. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that he was what would today be called black, either. Most of the inhabitants of North Africa are Semitic, a separate group from either (which also includes most inhabitants of the Middle East), and I’m not familiar with any evidence that Hannibal was not also in this category.
I was rather surprised, though, to see the Queen of Sheba in Cecil’s list of people claimed to be black but who probably weren’t. Assuming that Sheba was the lady addressed in the Song of Solomon, she is, in fact, described as being dark or black. Of course, this could just mean “darker than most of the people Solomon hung out with”, and I don’t think it’s completely established where exactly Sheba was, but it seems to me a safe assumption, in the absence of further evidence, that she was what we would call black.
The problem is, however, that many of those who claim that certain historical figures were black or of mixed-heritage are using those claims for their own advantage. That is, to push a particular agenda of their own which is often racist on its face (the Afro-centrists are a great example of this).
To the case at hand, Beethoven was not black. That is, he was not of African descent (moreso than any other Asian or Caucasin is).
The theory that he was black is based on the fact that Beethoven’s ancestors came from the Flemish region of northern Europe that was invaded and ruled by the Spanish. Since the Moors were part of spanish culture, it is possible that Moors were part of the invasion. This theory, however, is not based on genealogical studies of Beethoven’s past, which are available for people to study.
It is based on the assumption that one of Beethoven’s ancestors had
an out-of-wedlock child.
Another part of the theory is that Beethoven was given the nickname “Spaniard” as a child because he had a dark complexion by European standards. However, it is important to note that no one called Beethoven black or a moor during his lifetime, and the Viennese were keenly aware both of Moors and of mulattos, such as George Bridgetower, the famous violinist who collaborated with
Beethoven.
The only “evidence” is based on false information, such as the assertion that Beethoven’s mother was a Moor. There is simply no evidence to support this.
As for Hannibal, it is likely that he was semetic, more of an Arab-looking man than a sub-Saharan African. It was common for the Romans to denigrate their oppenents by suggesting they were “blacker” than they actually were.
At the end of the day, I have no problem with the notion that Hannibal or Beethoven being black. The issue is, however, seperating fact from fiction. The vast majority of the evidence suggests that neither men were Sub-Saharan Africans. There are numerous great figures from Sub-Saharan African so their is certainly no need to co-opt anyone into that pantheon.
Two posts have more or less suggested that Hannibal may have been Semitic. Since, in point of fact, Carthage was a Phoenician colony, Semitic is what he bloody well ought to have been in the first place.
Hannibal Hamlin was Phoenician?
I’m pretty sure that they are talking about Colonel John “Hannibal” Smith.
Some of us who have only been able to establish “white” links to the past are looking for connections to other ethnicities. Also, as long as there continues to be “racial” identification -whatever that means – it might be a good thing for young people of color to see their connections with Beethoven, Colette, and perhaps Eisenhower.
Not, however, at the expense of the truth. That’s the issue here. Creating false connections or false histories does nothing for young people of color. All it does is to create inaccuaraties for the sake of politics which all historians should try to avoid. Beethoven wasn’t black but John Coltraine was. Eisenhower wasn’t black but Nelson Mandela is. It’s not a good thing to invent something just to help someone’s esteem (allegedly). It is a good thing to remind all of us of the contributions made by sub-Saharan Africans and African-Americans.
There’s been a sentiment I’ve read over and over again on these boards I take issue with, and that’s people saying, “But that doesn’t necessarily mean that he was what would today be called black, either.”
Ha. Sheeeee, yeah, right. Things haven’t changed that much.
We’ve got two standards that determine “blackness.” One is the modern abd increasingly accepted practice of judging “race” by your immediate ethnic heritage and personal identification. The other is utilizing that venerable relic of the antebellum South, the one-drop rule: if you’ve got one drop of black blood, you’re black. Period. The one-drop rule holds fast for many many Americans. People who just don’t see people that way apparently have a hard time understanding that’s just the way it is in America. It’s dishonest to pretend this mindset doesn’t exist or is an irrelevant factor in people’s lives. Ivory Soap is 99.7% pure. If the remainder is Cherokee, Armenian, Jewish, Japanese, Inuit, Appalachian or Aborigine, it’s still Ivory Soap. If that 0.3% is black blood, even Ivory Soap is black.
Using that litmus test over people in secular history, a lot of personalities, and ancient peoples are recast as black folk. Using Biblical passages as literal gospel, major figures are cast as black. The Queen of Sheba. Moses’ son, Ham. Jesus, and by extension his mother Mary and the Sperm of God Himself.
Does that attitude strike you as slightly insane? Stupid? Well, maybe, a lot of traditions are insane and stupid and wrong, none moreso than America’s exceedingly racist notions of race itself. But the beliefs are real and strong. Damn near all America buys into it in some fashion. Granted, that overwhelming whiteness of the Ivory Soap example will make you light enough to “pass,” but “passing” just means you’ve got something to hide. It’s been said that the United States is the only country in the world where a white woman can have a black baby but a black woman cannot have a white baby. It’s instructive to segue to the timeless wisdom of Public Enemy’s “Fear of A Black Planet.”
Black man, black woman, black baby.
White woman, white man, white baby.
Black woman, white man, black baby.
Black man, white woman, black baby.
Where the Afrocentrist POV really kicks at its most misguided is during the interpretive visual depiction of these people after making even tenuous claims to blackness. Hannibal isn’t just a mixed race Carthagian, he’s black. Cleopatra isn’t a mixed race Egyptian, she’s black. The ancuent Egyptians were black, the mummies of their kings have tested melanin contents are on par with sub-Saharan Africans. Sheba is black. Aesop is black. Hamilton, Jefferson amd Eisenhower were black. And Bill Clinton definitely has Negroid tendencies.
Lochdale’s right: I have less of a problem with applying the one drop rule with people as diverse as cartoonist George Herriman – it’s the completely false connections or false histories and claims being made.
You think religious doctrines are delusional? Try race.
Excellent post. The “one drop” rule is now being used to include anyone and everyone as black when it was once used to exclude anyone and everyone from being white. Idiots then, idiots now.
That said, I remember growing up in Ireland I was told that Edmund Burke was Irish. We were so desperate for some sense of identity that the fact that Burke was born in Ireland was enough to make him “just like us”. He was, of course, entirely English but that didn’t stop us from claiming him as one of “our own”.
I pity the fool who said that.
What is “entirely English” about someone who was born in Ireland and educated until university there?
The problem with throwing out claims, as the OP did, is that there are a million serious historians in the world who have spent years of their lives tracking down geneologies and every scrap of paper still in existence to prove or disprove these often wild, anonymous, and scattershot claims.
The notion that Alexander Hamilton’s mother, Rachel Faucette (not Fawcett), had “mixed blood” is one of these. Ron Chernow swiftly disposes of it in his massive Hamilton biography.
[quote]
A persistant mythology in the Caribbean asserts that Rachel was partly black, making Alexander Hamilton a quadroon or an octoroon. In this obsessively race-conscious society, however, Rachel was invariably listed among the whites on local tax rolls. Her identification as someone of mixed race has no basis in verifiable fact. The folklore that Hamilton was mulatto probably arose from the incontestable truth that many, if not most, illegitimate children in the West Indies bore mixed blood. At the time of Rachel’s birth, the four thousand slaves on Nevis outnumbered whites by a ratio of four to one, making ineq
I don’t know what key I hit, but let me start again.
The problem with throwing out claims, as the OP did, is that there are a million serious historians in the world who have spent years of their lives tracking down genealogies and every scrap of paper still in existence to prove or disprove these often wild, anonymous, and scattershot claims.
The notion that Alexander Hamilton’s mother, Rachel Faucette (not Fawcett), had “mixed blood” is one of these. Ron Chernow swiftly disposes of it in his massive Hamilton biography.
That whites in the south pretended these relations never took place is a true and shameful part of our history. Finding the true paternity of individuals in many households remains an impossibility even today.
However, serious history is the only place to turn to when these claims are thrown around. The “looks” of people from pictures and the “claims” made by political enemies are not evidence. It’s long past time that we leave such nonsense to the tabloids and return history to the historians*.
*Disclaimer: some historians are not serious, some have axes to grind, some are incompetent, some matters will never be known, yadda yadda. It’s still better than what the OP was spouting.
I know a great many people of various levels of tolerance. Almost none of them would call someone from the Eastern Mediterranean “black”. I think you’ve built a straw-man here, attacking a statement that wasn’t really made.
Mathochist. Actually I refuted a statement Chronos made. So much for the straw, man.
Chronos stated that rather than being black, Hannibal was likely Semitic. Your rant dealt strictly with a white/black dichotomy. His point was that the term “black” (in common use) refers to recent descent from sub-Saharan Africa, either “in one drop” or some larger amount. His case that Hannibal was “not what would today be called black” has nothing to do with which fraction of his parentage comes from where.
If you truly want to refute his assertion, what you must show is that semitic peoples “would today be called black”. Ranting about the silliness of the one-drop rule is simply beside the point.
Burke was, however, part of the English ascendency. He would not have characterized himself as Irish unless it was Irish as a part of the United Kingdom. Put another way, Burke was Irish only insomuch as it did not in any way contradict his Britishness. Similar to Nelson, he was a citizen and a supporter of the United Kingdom and not of Ireland. We were thought in school that somehow Burke was a product of Ireland when in reality he was a product of an English system and an English society that just happened to be based in Dublin.
Mathochist. Afrocentric scholars like J.A. Rogers, Benjamin E. Mays, Ivan Van Sertima, Asa Hillaird and John Henrik Clarke, and their followers have been claiming ancient Semites were black the last 80 years. Even white supremicists say that. Even Jared Diamond says that’s likely. I never said the one drop rule was silly… I said that standard, applied across different peoples in history, strikes many people as slightly insane and stupid. Frankly, some of it is. Other proofs are more compelling. European historians tend to have extraordinary faith in documents to tell the historical truths. Afrocentric historians say, “Bump them paper scraps. Look at her photo. This chick was mixed. While you’re at it, check out these Olmec stone heads.” Your definition of “black” “in common use” applying only to “recent” “sub-Sahara blacks” is suspect. How recent? Common to whom? Arabs, Berbers, Tuareg, Moors don’t have direct Black African ancestry?
I didn’t evoke a straw man. Afrocentrists use the one-drop rule define “black” broadly. Many people already think Semites are of black descent. And Cecil and I have both observed that a whole lot folks don’t care, it’s not exactly irrelevant. I may be guilty of ranting, though, but I’m just passionate that way. I’m curious at what point do you concede (if you concede) this alternate view has some merit.
With all due respect Askia, there is not a ghost of a chance that the Semetic peoples can be consider Sub-Saharan African. They simply aren’t “black” as the afro-centrists would have us believe. Most learned people do not “believe” that the Semetic peoples were black. In fact, nobody actually believes that other than those who would ignore the facts.
Moors, Berbers et al. do have a common African history but that does not make them Sub-Saharan African. To go back that far is to make mockery of entire cultures and history which no reasonable person would want to do.