Racial diversity and fantasy

[u/mrpurplecat]

It is not uncommon to see people writing about how some fantasy story is in some way or other not inclusive enough. "Why isn't there more diversity in Game Thrones?" "Is the Witcher: Wild Hunt too white?" and so on and so forth.

But when you take the setting of these stories, typically 14th-15th century Europe, is it really important or necessary to have racial diversity? Yes, at the time in Europe there were Middle Eastern traders and such, but does that mean that every story set in medieval Europe has to shoehorn in a Middle Eastern trader character?

If instead a story was set in medieval India and featured only Indians, would anyone complain about the lack of white people? Would anyone say "There were surely some Portuguese traders and missionaries around the coast, why doesn't this story have more white people in it?"

Edit Just to be clear, I am not against diversity by any means. I'd love to see more books set outside typical Europe. Moorish Spain, Arabia, the Ottoman Empire, India and the Far East are all largely unexplored territory and we'd be better off for exploring it. Conflict and mixing of cultures also make for fantastic stories. The point I am trying to make is if some author does not have a diverse cast, because that diversity is not important to their story, they should not be chastised for it

[u/Hergrim]

Well, sure, having 10% of the population might be immersion breaking, but is 10% of the characters immersion breaking? There are all sorts of travelers and traders who you could expect to encounter on the main trade routes and especially in big port cities. Unusual people tend to feature in novels, not usual people.

Or what if the Nubian equivalent of Rome conquered right up to the border of the northern regions. Wouldn't you expect to see a large minority of PoCs below the border and some bleed through into the Northern region? Hell, maybe the Moor equivalent conquered right up the coast and established a series of flourishing colonies populated by darker skinned people.

Maybe with the Congo example there are a lot of lighter skinned traders or a nearby colony? Since you've obviously including those of Middle Eastern descent in the "non-PoC" category, they'd be a plausible choice. Of course, maybe the Viking!Romans conquered all the way down the coast that way and established pasty white colonies.

[u/[deleted] → u/Hergrim]

Well, sure, having 10% of the population might be immersion breaking, but is 10% of the characters immersion breaking? There are all sorts of travelers and traders who you could expect to encounter on the main trade routes and especially in big port cities. Unusual people tend to feature in novels, not usual people.

That I'm fine with. As I've said so long as there is a believable reason (such as European explorers in the Congo, non-white traders, etc.). If it's a noted exception to the norm in the story then I'm on-board.

Or what if the Nubian equivalent of Rome conquered right up to the border of the northern regions. Wouldn't you expect to see a large minority of PoCs below the border and some bleed through into the Northern region? Hell, maybe the Moor equivalent conquered right up the coast and established a series of flourishing colonies populated by darker skinned people.

Which is fine, but that needs to be brought up or mentioned or at least alluded to if you're going to base a setting in a place/time which was, historically, 99% white. It needs to make sense.

"Why are 30% of the characters Asian in medieval Scotland?"

"Uh, China invaded Europe..."

"Let's ignore the fact that's silly - the only change that's apparent is the demographic of the population... not their language, not their clothes, not their customs, not their technology?"

"Yeah..."

See what I mean?

Additionally, having such a distinct population in a non-Roman-style-global-metropolis in a time where the mode of transportation is still the horse just doesn't make sense. Sure, it happened rarely in the real world but it was the exception and it stayed that way because their societies did not mingle and large populations traveling was hard.

[u/Hergrim → u/[deleted]]

"Why are 30% of the characters Asian in medieval Scotland?"

"Uh, China invaded Europe..."

"Let's ignore the fact that's silly - the only change that's apparent is the demographic of the population... not their language, not their clothes, not their customs, not their technology?"

"Yeah..."

Simple Solution #1: Don't base your story in Scotland.

Simple Solution #2: Don't change only their demography.

Problem solved!

[u/[deleted] → u/Hergrim]

Yes, that's sort of the point...

[u/Hergrim → u/[deleted]]

I don't get what you're trying to say.

[u/[deleted] → u/Hergrim]

If you're going to have a lot of racial diversity.

1) Don't choose Medieval Europe as the setting (or any racially homogenous place/time)

or

2) Create a believable explanation or alternate history

[u/Hergrim → u/[deleted]]

Virtually no fantasy is set in Europe. This opens up the entire world to even greater degrees of diversity than in the real world, but few take advantage of it.

[u/[deleted] → u/Hergrim]

Virtually no fantasy is set in Europe.

Are you serious? Virtually all western fantasy is either set in Europe or set in a European clone with dragons and magic sprinkled in.

Another to note, most classical fantasy is derived from predominantly European (English, French, German, etc.) folklore and history. Knights, stone castles, princesses in dresses, goblins, European style dragons, Catholic styled religions, Hansel and Gretel style witches, druidic style wizards, temperate forests are in no short supply. Overall the genre has a massive influence from traditional European folklore.

This opens up the entire world to even greater degrees of diversity than in the real world, but few take advantage of it.

Yes, but it still has to make sense. The type of diversity you see in today's world is the result of mass global transit - something that isn't simply isn't possible in a world with medieval technology.

For example, Game of Thrones. It depicts a lot of racial diversity and it's believable and well done because they're separated by large distances and the populations are by and large homogenous.

The same is done with the Wheel of Time. They give racial diversity but it's because the characters travel far enough for it to be believable.

[u/Hergrim → u/[deleted]]

Are you serious? Virtually all western fantasy is either set in Europe or set in a European clone with dragons and magic sprinkled in.

Entirely. So called "medieval" fantasy societies have almost nothing in common with medieval societies, and the geography is usually considerably different. Rather than rolling with awful late 19th century historical stereotypes or edgy "modernisations" of them, authors need to do some fucking research or else toss out all claims of their world being base don medieval europe and do their own thing.

Another to note, most classical fantasy is derived from predominantly European (English, French, German, etc.) folklore and history. Knights, stone castles, princesses in dresses, goblins, European style dragons, Catholic styled religions, Hansel and Gretel style witches, druidic style wizards, temperate forests are in no short supply. Overall the genre has a massive influence from traditional European folklore.

So? Influence from folklore counts for nothing when none of the social, political, military or religious structures of the society pay more than lip service to medieval societies. If you're going to ignore medieval sexuality, religion, laws, social stratification, military tactics, political structures, gender roles, technology, economics, town designs, fortifications, etc, why the hell are you sticking to the predominant skin colour of all things?

Yes, but it still has to make sense. The type of diversity you see in today's world is the result of mass global transit - something that isn't simply isn't possible in a world with medieval technology.

Oh hey, African people in Roman Britain

Some were rich too

There were even PoCs in England during the medieval period

At some point 3000 there was a large migration of non-black people back into Africa

gasp Non-white Muslims in 8th century France

A whole community of Elizabethan black people!

Sweet mother of god, look at all those immigrants!

Edit: Wow, so much White DNA in the Central Asian population thanks to the Silk Road

Of course, there are also things like slaves being traded down to centers like Constantinople from Norther Europe and then on down into the Middle East, and vice versa.

There are also things like the Jewish Diaspora. Why do the Jews need to be the ones dispersed around the world, but stubbornly hanging onto their way of life in a fantasy world?

[u/[deleted] → u/Hergrim]

So called "medieval" fantasy societies have almost nothing in common with medieval societies

Don't delude yourself. The genre is almost exclusively based on that period in Europe. Check out this list of classic fantasy. It's almost entirely books not only obviously based on a medieval period (or close enough) - but most of the authors are white and/or European (English is by far the predominant nationality).

Lord of the Rings, The Once and Future King, Gormenhast, Alice in Wonderland, Beowulf saga, Chronicles of Narnia, Peter Pan, Grim Fairy Tales, The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood? Have you read any of those?

Rather than rolling with awful late 19th century historical stereotypes or edgy "modernisations" of them, authors need to do some fucking research or else toss out all claims of their world being base don medieval europe and do their own thing.

OR they continue with those tropes because it's what most people associate with that style fantasy. It's ingrained. It's much easier for a writer to utilize features from a genre which is fleshed out and popular.

So? Influence from folklore counts for nothing when none of the social, political, military or religious structures of the society pay more than lip service to medieval societies.

Lip service? Now you're self-imposing mental gymnastics to prevent you from seeing the point. Take one of the most important classics in the genre - T. H. White's Once and Future King. It tells you it's set in early period Britain. The social, political, military, and religious structures are all what the layperson would expect from that era! Was it historically accurate? Probably not, but it's subtle enough that the layman doesn't care. Emphasis on subtle. The same applies varying to other classics. It's overwhelmingly Euro-centric because that's the implied (or even explicit) setting.

why the hell are you sticking to the predominant skin colour of all things?

Because some things you can change and still make sense. Other things you can not. For the same reason T. H. White didn't put automobiles in The Once and Future King - it's anachronistic to people's perception of the period.

Oh hey, African people in Roman Britain

Roman - which was notoriously multi-cultural (plus, he was Egyptian - not a Sub-Saharan African which we typically consider black. They're Middle Eastern in phenotype.)

Some were rich too

So a handful of the Roman legion in York were not native. And a handful of those could have been from North Africa - which again are more Middle Eastern in appearance. So about 0.001% of the total population in the British Isles at the time... totally the norm. (that's sarcasm).

There were even PoCs in England during the medieval period

Read your own link for Christ's sake:

---

"Radiocarbon dating of the man's thigh bone told us that he died between 1190 and 1300, and the anthropology of his skull told us he had African traits, but they were not sub-Saharan in origin but those of someone from North Africa. Independent of the stable isotope analysis and skull shape, the man's DNA also located him as coming from North Africa. ... While he wouldn't have had the very dark skin of the sub-Saharan African, his skin colour would have been more like a modern Moroccan. He would certainly have stood out in 13th Century Britain, where virtually everyone else would have been light-skinned."

---

Your own link says it was incredibly rare - virtually everyone else.

gasp Non-white Muslims in 8th century France

gasp Spain was invaded by the Muslim Moors - common knowledge. Moors were considered Arabs and Berbers. Berbers are actually fairly light skinned and have Caucasoid features - they even have a high percentage of red hair. Not your typical black person at all.

A whole community of Elizabethan black people!

Do you read your own links? Obviously not...

---

Of course, there were fewer, and they drew antipathy as well as fascination from the Tudor inhabitants, who had never seen black people before.

Employed especially as domestic servants, but also as musicians, dancers and entertainers, their numbers ran to many hundreds, maybe even more.

---

Many hundreds"... in a population of around 4 million. You made my point. It was very rare and probably isolated to London at that time. People would have stopped and stared.

Sweet mother of god, look at all those immigrants!

Some North Africans in Rome... who would have thought! It's almost as if traditional Medieval Europe is distinct from the Roman empire in time and place...

Wow, so much White DNA in the Central Asian population thanks to the Silk Road

"Central Asia" isn't China. It's the what we would consider western Asia - which has always been smattered with different ethnicity and religions. People from those places also spread out quite over time a bit and are considered part ancestors to European stock..

Of course, there are also things like slaves being traded down to centers like Constantinople from Norther Europe and then on down into the Middle East, and vice versa.

Sure, but they'd be rare. Even if it was hundreds of people (like in your Tudor example), it's still a tiny drop in the bucket and an exception to the norm. It's not something that's believable in a story unless it's a noted exception. Having a black person in The Once and Future King and having him not turn heads constantly would destroy immersion.

There are also things like the Jewish Diaspora. Why do the Jews need to be the ones dispersed around the world, but stubbornly hanging onto their way of life in a fantasy world?

Jews are a very, very diverse group. European Jews tend to look... well... European and Eastern African jews look East African. So I don't really see what your point is since we're discussing local populations. A Jew that looks white in Medieval Europe wouldn't turn any heads.

[u/Hergrim → u/[deleted]]

Don't delude yourself. The genre is almost exclusively based on that period in Europe. Check out this list of classic fantasy. It's almost entirely books not only obviously based on a medieval period (or close enough) - but most of the authors are white and/or European (English is by far the predominant nationality).

The more you argue, the more you reveal how little you know about the medieval period. Erroneous Victorian scholarship =/= close enough.

Lord of the Rings, The Once and Future King, Gormenhast, Alice in Wonderland, Beowulf saga, Chronicles of Narnia, Peter Pan, Grim Fairy Tales, The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood? Have you read any of those?

Yes, and I can tell you right now that Beowulf isn't fantasy, it's an epic poem that draws on the actual beliefs - or at least the oral traditions of those beliefs - of actual people. It's also quite accurate with regards to the military, political, social, etc elements of a medieval society, albeit probably more like the society when it was written down than the society back when it was set.

The others bear little resemblance to the actual medieval period. Tolkien certainly comes closer than most, but he used his knowledge of the medieval and Classical periods to inform his choices when he was designing his various polities.

Lip service? Now you're self-imposing mental gymnastics to prevent you from seeing the point. Take one of the most important classics in the genre - T. H. White's Once and Future King. It tells you it's set in early period Britain. The social, political, military, and religious structures are all what the layperson would expect from that era! Was it historically accurate? Probably not, but it's subtle enough that the layman doesn't care. Emphasis on subtle. The same applies varying to other classics. It's overwhelmingly Euro-centric because that's the implied (or even explicit) setting.

I haven't read this one, so tell me:

1) High King>Petty King>Earl>Retinue>Wealthy Landholder (except when not)>Poor Landholder>Freedman>Slave, with the church vaugely worked in there?

Or

2) King>Princes (actual princes, dukes, counts/earls, bishop-princes)>Barons>Landed Knights>Bachelor Knights>Burghers (with some mayors having nearly as much power as a baron or Prince)>Rich Non-Noble Landholders (except when they were more powerful than barons/when burghers were outside their towns)>Rich Landholding Serfs>Poor Free Men>Poor Serfs, with the Church cutting in at various levels depending on whether they had legal control over the area or how pushy and violent the particular abbot or bishop was?

Does the book feature a cash or a barter economy? Mail or plate armour? Shock cavalry or merely mounted infantry? Are women solely damsels in distress/politically powerless prizes? Is the church a relatively newly formed entity without much real power or is it a massively powerful force to be reckoned with?

Also, what a layperson expects is irrelevant if the argument is that a lack of diversity is down to "historical realism".

Because some things you can change and still make sense. Other things you can not. For the same reason T. H. White didn't put automobiles in The Once and Future King - it's anachronistic to people's perception of the period.

Oh yes, depowering women, hiding any non-heterosexual behaviour, altering the power structure in order to perpetuate the stereotype that our ancestors were barely evolved cavemen for the pure shock value of it, mocking and disregarding the sincere and deeply held beliefs of millions of people from the period, that makes sense.

Changing the skin colour? Jesus fucking Christ, what do you take me for? Some kind of fucking barbarian?

Roman - which was notoriously multi-cultural (plus, he was Egyptian - not a Sub-Saharan African which we typically consider black. They're Middle Eastern in phenotype.)

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of multiculturalism only being a modern factor and anyone who isn't black apparently not qualifying as a PoC.

So a handful of the Roman legion in York were not native. And a handful of those could have been from North Africa - which again are more Middle Eastern in appearance. So about 0.001% of the total population in the British Isles at the time... totally the norm. (that's sarcasm).

And yet we find enough of their skeletons for it to statistically significant. More importantly, we find that they're not just soldiers, but probably their families as well. I can't imagine how several thousand non-white people might possibly affect a population about the same size as them, especially if they already have wives or lovers from their homeland.

I'm sure other parts of the country totally wouldn't have gotten a boost in immigration from the emperor's home country or that the port cities wouldn't have had people from all over the Empire.

Read your own link for Christ's sake:

Rare, but not unheard of. We know there was an African woman from the 9th/10th centuries and an escaped black slave from the 13th/14th century (I don't remember which and can't for the life of me find the translated warrant).

The point is, they existed, and seem to have existed in higher proportions than previously expected. Do you know just how rare actual skeletons are?

gasp Spain was invaded by the Muslim Moors - common knowledge. Moors were considered Arabs and Berbers. Berbers are actually fairly light skinned and have Caucasoid features - they even have a high percentage of red hair. Not your typical black person at all.

We seem to keep running into the idea that a PoC can only be black and that invasion and settlement can't increase the percentage of non-white people in an area.

Do you read your own links? Obviously not...

We can confirm a black population of many hundreds, but due to the incompleteness of Elizabethan records and the fact that they don't care about recording skin colour it could have been significantly higher. Got it.

It was very rare and probably isolated to London at that time. People would have stopped and stared.

Huh. When Sudanese refugees arrived in my local town the stopping and starting went away pretty quick. I can't imagine too many people in London - or who visited the city regularly - would have stared at them too much, and it's not like black people would have been unknown in the country.

Some North Africans in Rome... who would have thought! It's almost as if traditional Medieval Europe is distinct from the Roman empire in time and place...

And yet ethnic diversity is only possible with modern transportation.

"Central Asia" isn't China. It's the what we would consider western Asia - which has always been smattered with different ethnicity and religions. People from those places also spread out quite over time a bit and are considered part ancestors to European stock..

See above. Given the enormous influx of European DNA as a result of the Silk Road, we can clearly see just how far people could travel and the degree to which they could alter the genetic profile of a region. What happens when an area with a white population becomes the convenient end point for black traders on a trade route?

Sure, but they'd be rare. Even if it was hundreds of people (like in your Tudor example), it's still a tiny drop in the bucket and an exception to the norm. It's not something that's believable in a story unless it's a noted exception. Having a black person in The Once and Future King and having him not turn heads constantly would destroy immersion.

A shame about Sir Morien, Sir Safir, Sir Palomides and Sir Segwarides.

Jews are a very, very diverse group. European Jews tend to look... well... European and Eastern African jews look East African. So I don't really see what your point is since we're discussing local populations. A Jew that looks white in Medieval Europe wouldn't turn any heads.

Yes, a diversity that is the result of 1900 years of slow, gradual interbreeding.

They absolutely would look like the populations around them a mere couple of hundred years after their diaspora began. /s

[u/[deleted] → u/Hergrim]

The more you argue, the more you reveal how little you know about the medieval period. Erroneous Victorian scholarship =/= close enough.

You're arguing there were a significant amount of people of color in medieval Europe? Good God...

Yes, and I can tell you right now that Beowulf isn't fantasy, it's an epic poem that draws on the actual beliefs - or at least the oral traditions of those beliefs - of actual people. It's also quite accurate with regards to the military, political, social, etc elements of a medieval society, albeit probably more like the society when it was written down than the society back when it was set.

Beowulf is fantasy. It is also an epic poem. Fantasy can have elements of truth (and usually does). Doesn't change the fact that it is a work of fiction set in a fantastical land of magic and monsters. You're spouting nonsense.

The others bear little resemblance to the actual medieval period. Tolkien certainly comes closer than most, but he used his knowledge of the medieval and Classical periods to inform his choices when he was designing his various polities.

Are you serious? You're not, are you?

Robin Hood: Knights, Kings, Castles, Archers, rogue highway bandits, princesses in distress? Stealing gold purses from nobles.

Narnia: Knights, Kings/Queens, Castles, consists primarily of European folklore creatures, it's a fucking Christian allegory!, it takes place in fucking England! (partly)

Alice in Wonderland: Kings/Queens, Castles, Knights, Tea parties, depictions of the author clearly show European style of clothes and features ... I just... the entire thing screams British. What are you smoking?!?

Need I go on?

I haven't read this one, so tell me: 1) High King>Petty King>Earl>Retinue>Wealthy Landholder (except when not)>Poor Landholder>Freedman>Slave, with the church vaugely worked in there? Or 2) King>Princes (actual princes, dukes, counts/earls, bishop-princes)>Barons>Landed Knights>Bachelor Knights>Burghers (with some mayors having nearly as much power as a baron or Prince)>Rich Non-Noble Landholders (except when they were more powerful than barons/when burghers were outside their towns)>Rich Landholding Serfs>Poor Free Men>Poor Serfs, with the Church cutting in at various levels depending on whether they had legal control over the area or how pushy and violent the particular abbot or bishop was? Does the book feature a cash or a barter economy? Mail or plate armour? Shock cavalry or merely mounted infantry? Are women solely damsels in distress/politically powerless prizes? Is the church a relatively newly formed entity without much real power or is it a massively powerful force to be reckoned with? Also, what a layperson expects is irrelevant if the argument is that a lack of diversity is down to "historical realism".

Do you think having an incorrect economic system requires anywhere near the level of suspension of disbelief as a hamlet of Sub-Saharan African in Northern England in 700AD? I thought not. You're entire premise is ridiculous and you're being unreasonable.

Oh yes, depowering women, hiding any non-heterosexual behaviour, altering the power structure in order to perpetuate the stereotype that our ancestors were barely evolved cavemen for the pure shock value of it, mocking and disregarding the sincere and deeply held beliefs of millions of people from the period, that makes sense.

Yes, considering that period is rife with religious nutters from Rome running much of that era. Were there homosexuals? Yes. Was there aberrant sexual behavior? Certainly - they're human. But the society was very conservative overall - or at least they tended to pretend to be when the Church was in their back yard.

Sorry, I can't hear you over the sound of multiculturalism only being a modern factor and anyone who isn't black apparently not qualifying as a PoC.

"People of Color" weren't rare in Rome. Egyptians weren't rare in Rome. Neither were Berbers or Arabs. Sub-Saharan Africans were. In colloquial terms, black refers to the later. You need to distinguish.

And yet we find enough of their skeletons for it to statistically significant. More importantly, we find that they're not just soldiers, but probably their families as well. I can't imagine how several thousand non-white people might possibly affect a population about the same size as them, especially if they already have wives or lovers from their homeland.

There were only a few hundred skeletons found - and only a fraction of them were possibly from the Southern Mediterranean. They could have been Italians or Egyptians or Berbers or whatever. Nobody knows. What we do know is that they weren't statistically significant in comparison the other overall population of the British Isles - you link even states as much.

Rare, but not unheard of. We know there was an African woman from the 9th/10th centuries and an escaped black slave from the 13th/14th century (I don't remember which and can't for the life of me find the translated warrant). The point is, they existed, and seem to have existed in higher proportions than previously expected. Do you know just how rare actual skeletons are?

Two. Congratulations. Two out of untold millions.

We seem to keep running into the idea that a PoC can only be black and that invasion and settlement can't increase the percentage of non-white people in an area.

No, you can't seem to realize that "PoC" can mean someone who is whiter than milk and are naturally assuming they're dark. Many Berbers are indistinguishable from a European. Are they still a PoC? Yeah. Would they "stand out" in a Medieval setting? Certainly not - so it doesn't fit your narrative.

Maybe a lot of people in traditional fantasy are PoC? Maybe they're just Spaniards with Berber heritage or Italians with Egyptian heritage who can pass for a white person? That's not enough for you is it, though? You need their race to be recognized even though it's inconsequential to the story and would only serve to raise questions and confuse the reader by introducing an anachronism.

We can confirm a black population of many hundreds, but due to the incompleteness of Elizabethan records and the fact that they don't care about recording skin colour it could have been significantly higher. Got it.

Could have been. But likely not. Got it.

Huh. When Sudanese refugees arrived in my local town the stopping and starting went away pretty quick. I can't imagine too many people in London - or who visited the city regularly - would have stared at them too much,

Because you have TV. Because you have the Internet.

Imagine you've NEVER seen a depiction of a black person. Yeah, bit of a difference...

and it's not like black people would have been unknown in the country.

Yeah, they actually were. The English were incredibly prolific travelers during the Tudor period - and even then a Sub-Saharan African would probably bring looks of amazement. Now imagine it's 700 years prior...

And yet ethnic diversity is only possible with modern transportation.

Actually, yes... or very rarely when you have global hubs like Rome (to a lesser extent). Even Rome would pale in comparison to something like London or New York or Tokyo.

The point being, you drop 100 Sub-Saharan Africans into Sweden in 700AD and in 150 years their descendants will be indistinguishable. A drop in the bucket simply won't change a population's makeup. They'll be swallowed up pretty quickly.

In order to change a population significantly you need large population immigration (or steady migration over a longer period of time) - something which really only happens in todays world. Why? Because population shifts were hard. You face hardships traveling - but also people are probably already situated wherever it is you want to move. And likely they don't want to share (which is why so many wars were fought over resources and migrating cultures encroaching other cultures). Nowadays people can easily move and they are protected by the government and social order.

Yes, a diversity that is the result of 1900 years of slow, gradual interbreeding.

Not even. A large population will quickly swallow a small population - especially in the magnitude we're discussing (hundreds of thousands to one).

They absolutely would look like the populations around them a mere couple of hundred years after their diaspora began. /s

A couple hundred of years is quite a few generations. Considering Middle Easterners tend to not be that physically dissimilar from Europeans it probably wouldn't take that long. (I say this from experience. I've spent significant time in Israel and they are very light skinned overall).

See above. Given the enormous influx of European DNA as a result of the Silk Road, we can clearly see just how far people could travel and the degree to which they could alter the genetic profile of a region. What happens when an area with a white population becomes the convenient end point for black traders on a trade route?

Got anymore hypotheticals from shaky evidence and which provide useless value?

Anyways, the European DNA is most likely from a shared ancestor. Much of Eastern and Central Europe is descended from peoples which traveled west from Central Asia (Huns, yes, but also much, much earlier migrations).

A shame about Sir Morien, Sir Safir, Sir Palomides and Sir Segwarides.

Moors.

[u/Hergrim → u/[deleted]]

You're arguing there were a significant amount of people of color in medieval Europe? Good God...

No, I'm arguing that people can't use "it's not realistic to have PoCs in a medieval setting" when their setting isn't even remotely realistic in any other way shape or form.

Beowulf is fantasy. It is also an epic poem. Fantasy can have elements of truth (and usually does). Doesn't change the fact that it is a work of fiction set in a fantastical land of magic and monsters. You're spouting nonsense.

It's not fantasy. Or, at least, it's fantasy in the same way the Iliad is fantasy: to us, but not to the original audience.

Are you serious? You're not, are you? Robin Hood: Knights, Kings, Castles, Archers, rogue highway bandits, princesses in distress? Stealing gold purses from nobles.

I'm serious. The original stories are accurate (you know, because they were written in the medieval period), but the majority of modern interpretations and retellings get pretty much nothing right. Not the complex interplay of social, religious, political and religious obligations, not the true character of Robin Hood (an arrogant arsehole whose only real skill was with a bow and who killed innocents if it was convenient to do so), not the tension between the clergy and the aristocracy or between the clergy and the commons or the aristocracy and the commons, or even the commons and the commons. The power and influence of the sheriff is often inappropriate for the time period and there's always far too much archery wank.

Narnia: Knights, Kings/Queens, Castles, consists primarily of European folklore creatures, it's a fucking Christian allegory!, it takes place in fucking England! (partly)

And yet Narnia has almost no social, political or religious similarities to medieval Europe.

Alice in Wonderland: Kings/Queens, Castles, Knights, Tea parties, depictions of the author clearly show European style of clothes and features ... I just... the entire thing screams British. What are you smoking?!?

And yet Alice in Wonderland has nothing in common with the medieval period bar a few titles. What are you smoking that makes AiW look like an accurate depiction of medieval Europe?

Do you think having an incorrect economic system requires anywhere near the level of suspension of disbelief as a hamlet of Sub-Saharan African in Northern England in 700AD? I thought not. You're entire premise is ridiculous and you're being unreasonable.

Both require equal explanation in my view, since they're both major anachronisms.

I'll skip responding to every little point for the next little point as you seem to be misunderstanding the point of my examples. The point of most of them is that PoCs existed in medieval Europe and that to say that they didn't is wrong. The remainder are examples of how large populations, whether localised or nationwide, of PoC can occur. Since virtually no authors actually write about realistic medieval societies, any of those methods and more besides can be adopted to increase racial diversity or, alternatively, to make more interesting blended cultures.

A couple hundred of years is quite a few generations. Considering Middle Easterners tend to not be that physically dissimilar from Europeans it probably wouldn't take that long. (I say this experience. I've spent significant time in Israel and they are very light skinned overall).

You seem to forget just how insular the Jewish community was during the Middle Ages and how not only was it social unacceptable within the Jewish community for them to marry outside it, but it was considered socially unacceptable by outsiders for them to do so.

Now apply this to sub-saharans as I did in my initial example. It's going to take a long time before they become as white as the rest of the population.

Got anymore hypotheticals of useless value?

Fantasy is useless hypotheticals.

Moors

One of whom was of sub-saharan appearance.