David Olusoga’s Black and British: A Forgotten History is an ambitious attempt to bring to light the overlooked narratives of Black people in Britain, tracing their stories over two millennia. Olusoga’s core argument is that Britain’s history is deeply intertwined with the African and Afro-Caribbean experience, and that centuries of Black presence have been systematically ignored or diminished in mainstream historical accounts. His goal—to highlight Britain’s connection to colonialism, the slave trade, and racism—is undoubtedly important. However, the book has received criticism for historical oversights, selectivity in source material, and interpretive choices that some argue skew historical truth or oversimplify complex events.
Selective Use of Historical Sources
One critique is Olusoga’s selective use of historical sources to frame a narrative that emphasizes oppression without always acknowledging the broader context. Critics suggest that while Olusoga’s work covers key periods of African and Caribbean migration and suffering under British colonial policies, he often omits aspects of history that complicate this narrative. For instance, British abolitionists who fought tirelessly against the transatlantic slave trade receive limited focus in comparison to the portrayal of Britain as an imperial oppressor. This imbalance may result in a skewed perception of British history, one that overlooks the significant and complex role of individuals who fought for freedom, equality, and change within Britain itself.
Over-Simplification of Complex Topics
The book’s tendency to simplify complex topics has been another point of criticism. The history of race relations in Britain, colonial exploitation, and the movement of people across continents are all highly nuanced subjects. Yet, Olusoga often simplifies these narratives into a story of Britain as predominantly oppressive and Black Britons as perpetual victims. This approach, while aimed at spotlighting ignored injustices, risks reducing multifaceted histories into binaries of “oppressor” and “oppressed.” Such simplifications can sometimes obscure the diversity of experiences within Black communities in Britain, which include stories of resilience, cultural fusion, and mutual influence, not just victimhood.
Generalization of Black Experiences in Britain
Olusoga’s sweeping approach to the history of Black people in Britain has led some to argue that he generalizes what was, in fact, a diverse set of experiences across time periods and regions. For example, he moves quickly from the Roman period to medieval England, the era of the transatlantic slave trade, and into the 20th century, often glossing over the unique social and cultural factors that affected Black people differently in each era. Critics argue that by attempting to portray a unified “Black British experience” over two thousand years, Olusoga may inadvertently erase the distinct histories and experiences of individuals and groups. This broad-brush approach can make it appear as though Black people in Britain were always part of a single, uniform experience of oppression, rather than a spectrum of experiences shaped by different historical, social, and economic contexts.
Presentism and Interpretation Bias
Presentism—interpreting historical events through the lens of contemporary values and beliefs—is another criticism that has been leveled at Black and British. By framing much of his analysis through modern understandings of racism and inequality, Olusoga runs the risk of imposing contemporary moral standards onto historical actors and events, which can lead to interpretive bias. This approach has the potential to misrepresent historical realities by projecting today’s ideas of race and social justice onto eras when these concepts did not exist in the same way. Critics argue that by not fully contextualizing historical beliefs within their own time, Olusoga’s work could be seen as distorting the historical narrative.
The presence of people from diverse parts of the Roman Empire in ancient Britain, including individuals from North Africa, has sparked considerable debate in historical and archaeological communities. The lack of clear evidence of Black Africans—specifically people of sub-Saharan African descent—in Roman Britain, combined with the portrayal of North Africans as “Black,” raises complex questions about historical representation and the potential for misleading interpretations in contemporary discussions of race.
Lack of Evidence for Black Africans in Roman Britain
Archaeological evidence for people of sub-Saharan African descent in Roman Britain is scant. Some discoveries have suggested that individuals of North African origin, who might have been Berbers or other groups from the Roman provinces in North Africa, resided in Britain during the Roman occupation. However, there is currently no strong genetic or skeletal evidence definitively identifying these individuals as Black Africans. Studies analyzing skeletal remains and ancient DNA have shown that some individuals in Roman Britain had origins as far away as the eastern Mediterranean, including Syria, and North Africa. Still, they primarily indicate Mediterranean or mixed ancestries, not necessarily sub-Saharan African descent.
Misinterpretation of North Africans as Black
The Roman Empire was vast, covering territories from Europe to North Africa and the Middle East. People from regions such as modern-day Libya, Egypt, or Tunisia would likely have had complexions ranging from lighter Mediterranean tones to darker shades, depending on the specific region and genetic diversity. Describing all these North African individuals as “Black” in the contemporary sense can be misleading and anachronistic. By today’s definitions, “Black” often implies ancestry rooted in sub-Saharan Africa, with distinct genetic, cultural, and historical identities. North Africans of the Roman era, while sometimes darker-skinned, would have identified with diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds—Berber, Egyptian, or Phoenician, for example—rather than as “Black” in any modern sense.
The Complexity of Roman Identities
Roman society did not classify people by race as it is understood today. Identity in the Roman Empire was typically defined by a mix of place of birth, language, social status, and citizenship rather than skin color. A person from North Africa might have been considered “Roman” or “Libyan” rather than classified by physical characteristics. This complexity of identity means that projecting modern racial categories onto ancient societies can lead to significant historical inaccuracies.
By labeling North Africans in Roman Britain as “Black,” there is a risk of oversimplifying the diversity of the Roman Empire and anachronistically applying a racial framework that did not exist in the same way in antiquity. Instead, it is more accurate to recognize these individuals as part of the vast multicultural mosaic of the Roman Empire, with identities defined by a range of factors beyond skin color.
Impact on Contemporary Historical Narratives
Portraying North Africans in Roman Britain as “Black” serves certain contemporary agendas, often aiming to highlight historical diversity and challenge traditional Eurocentric narratives. While these goals are important for inclusive history, misrepresenting ancient identities may ultimately hinder historical accuracy. By overstating the presence of Black Africans in Roman Britain, or by applying modern racial terms to ancient peoples, scholars and educators risk creating confusion around the actual diversity and social dynamics of the Roman world.
A more nuanced understanding of the evidence—and a careful approach to language—is essential in discussions of race in ancient history. Rather than applying terms like “Black” indiscriminately, it is more historically sound to refer to individuals in Roman Britain by their probable geographical origins (e.g., North African, Mediterranean, Eastern Mediterranean) and cultural affiliations.
While it is historically plausible that individuals from North Africa lived in Roman Britain, there is little evidence to support the presence of Black Africans specifically. Representing North Africans as “Black” in the modern sense not only oversimplifies the diversity of the Roman Empire but also risks misleading readers and students about the nature of ancient identities. Roman Britain was a diverse place, but that diversity does not necessarily align with today’s racial categories. Instead, an accurate portrayal of Roman Britain respects the era’s unique cultural and social constructs, allowing us to better appreciate the historical complexity of identity without distorting it through modern lenses.
Conflation of British and American Race Relations
A further criticism of Olusoga’s work is its tendency to draw parallels between British and American race relations without adequately differentiating the unique histories and cultural dynamics of the two countries. While there are undeniable connections between Britain’s colonial legacy and its impact on race relations, some argue that Olusoga’s comparisons with American racial issues overlook significant distinctions. Britain’s historical relationship with its Black population, while fraught, has not always mirrored the experiences of Black Americans in the United States. By not adequately addressing these differences, Olusoga risks creating a one-size-fits-all perspective on race and colonialism that may not fully capture the specificity of British history.
Limited Engagement with Counter-Narratives
Olusoga’s book has also been critiqued for its limited engagement with counter-narratives that provide a more balanced view of British history. For instance, while the author rightly condemns the exploitation inherent in Britain’s colonial past, he doesn’t deeply explore the economic, political, and social forces within Britain that led to the eventual abolition of the slave trade. Furthermore, critics argue that the book often lacks a critical examination of African agency in the transatlantic slave trade, which involved African leaders and merchants who sold captives into slavery. By not fully addressing these aspects, Olusoga’s work could be perceived as selectively addressing history to fit a particular narrative rather than providing a comprehensive view.
While Black and British provides valuable insights into an often-neglected part of British history and emphasizes the importance of remembering the contributions and struggles of Black Britons, it is not without its flaws. The book’s tendency toward selective sourcing, generalization, presentism, and simplified narratives has led some to question its historical reliability. For readers looking to understand Britain’s complex relationship with race and colonialism, Black and British serves as an accessible starting point, but it is essential to consult other sources for a more nuanced understanding of these issues.
About the Author
