The bad history that claims ‘black boy’ names can’t relate to black people
The controversy over attempts to change the names of pubs and roads that have ‘black boy’ in them continues. The latest relates to Black Boy Lane in Tottenham whose name will be changed to John La Rose lane after a public consultation.
In modern day Tottenham the name doesn’t sit well, a vibrant multi-cultural community. Its name probably does not relate to Charles 11 often referred to as the ‘black boy’ itself a rather doubtful usage albeit an historic one. Nor is it likely to related to chimney sweeps but, relatedly, the dust pits that existed in Victorian times at the bottom of the lane and the itinerants who lived amongst their comparative warmth in winter and their rather grimy appearance.
Does that mean then that ‘black boy’ names never refer to black people. Certainly not. The bad history behind this assumes that there has only been a significant black population since after 1945. This is entirely wrong.
London and other ports had a significant black population from the late eighteenth century on. Many were ex-military having fought on the British side in the American War of Independence which Britain lost in 1783.Still others were ex-sailors who found themselves in London and some were ex-slaves who had made their way to Britain.
It was a significant enough population for black man William Cuffay to be the leader of London Chartism in 1848. The Times referred to this as ‘the black man and his Party’ and Punch lampooned him in racist tones. We can see here a potential link to ‘black boy’ names.
Not enough is known about black people in the UK in the first half of the nineteenth century but we shouldn’t dismiss ideas that the name ‘black boy’ did not on occasion refer to them, although not certainly from a 2022 perspective in a positive way.
Leave a Reply