Black Colonies in the North

While there are biological reasons that may explain why people living in the North of Europe lighter skin than those living in the Equator, those reasons aren't important enough in their own to make the existance of "Black" colonies in the north impossible (even in primitive times).

The Americas have both very hot regions and very cold regions (like Alaska or Tierra del Fuego) and in all cases the colour of the peoples was more or less the same (as far as I know).

The Americas were probably colonised somewhere between 50000 BC and 9000 BC. Yet the diverse climates and the diverse amount of light the different regions recieved wasn't an obstacle that humans couldn't overcome. ALL regions were colonised why the descendants of the same people, without experiencing a significant change in the colour of the skin. In fact, the Spanish were surprised not to find blacks in the West Indies. Ant the Fuegians weren't precisesly blonde.

Maybe this would have changed eventually. According to the Spanish "Cronistas", some Indians were darker than others. But, as the populations moved, there wasn't enough time for a group`to adjust its skin colour to a certain area. Humans move and progress waaaay faster than the rythm of evolution.

All this is to say that there's no biological reason why Blacks couldn't have established colonies in the North. There are a combination of historical and enviromental reasons that explain why that didn't happened IOTL. The biological factor wouldn't be enough to counter the "forces of history", if those had pushed history in a different direction.

If, for example, Africans had better crops, and had domesticated earlier; if Africans or Melanesians had disovered the Americas prior to the Europeans; or if a plague reduces the white population in far greater numbers than the black one, we might see Blacks "colonizing" the North and the far south. The fact that they'll recieve less light wouldn't have stopped them at all. Eventually, in tens of thousands of years, their skin might get lighter. But only in the very long run, and if these people don't move South, and no Southerners move North.
The dark colour of skin depends on dominant genes, which were lost by people with light skin. First Americans lacked those dominant genes.
 
Don't black people living in northern regions today sometimes get health troubles due to a lack of vitamins getting through?
(just an aside, they aren't serious enough to stop them living there)


that an alternate evolutionary adaptation to the cold.

btw - "Eskimos" is considered a derogatory term, and Inuit should be used. I don't know where the word you're using comes from, but you're going to offend someone

To rip off the almighty Stephen Fry- Inuit is the offensive term.
Eskimos are all arctic native americany types. Inuit are one (admitedly the largest but still just one) sub group of eskimos.
 
They would quickly assimilate and cease to exist as an independent ethnicity. Sure, there'd be some families within an ethnic group that would be darker than others, but that's nothing unusual. In the same way, there are many people in Eastern Europe with epicanthic folds, no doubt inherited from Asiatic settlers, but none of these people consider themselves to be Mongol-Bulgarians or what-have-you.

Thats indeed more likely, but I don't think its out of the question for them to culturally separate themselves from the rest of the population, like the Roma. Perhaps if they ended up in non-Orthodox parts of Europe in large numbers they could group up and isolate themselves from the population at large. This would inevitably lead to persecution, flight and development of a strong ethnic identity.
 
To rip off the almighty Stephen Fry- Inuit is the offensive term.
Eskimos are all arctic native americany types. Inuit are one (admitedly the largest but still just one) sub group of eskimos.
???????????
Inuit is at least a name applied by one group to and for themselves. "Eskimo" is a derogatory term applied by 'Indians' (no, I don't remember which nation, at a guess Cree). (I use 'Indian', as 'First Nations' or 'aboriginal' or whatever obviously applies to the recent arrival, sea-mammal hunting people as well as 'Indians')

If you want a term that encompasses Aleuts, etc., then, yes, "Inuit" for everyone may be offensive to the Aleuts. However, saying 'Inuit is derogatory' is, at best, like saying 'Dineh is derogatory' or 'Lakota is derogatory'.
 
Back to topic, I think a way to achieve this could be to have Black slaves imported to Europe. In the XVI century, there were black slaves in Lisbon. If this trend had continued, and different countries had gone to Lisbon to purchase slaves (in the same way that they purchased spices), there could be groups of Black people living in Europe. When slavery is abolished, there would be black "colonies" in Europe.

Onother way might be to have the Muslims win at Tours. After hundreds of years, most Europeans convert to islam. Trans Saharan trade is even greater than IOTL, and, among other merchandises, Blacks slaves are imported to Southern Europe. Gradually, kings began to trust more in these slaves than in the local muslims (Europeans whose ancestors had converted to islam ages ago), as they seem to be more loyal than the ambitius local aristocrats. At some point, this group rebels, and becomes the rulling group (as the mameluks did in Egypt). They keep importing slaves to reinfoce their ranks.
 
Top