"fellow" = "A black man"

[Joel S. Berson]

At 4/6/2011 02:43 PM, George Thompson wrote:
>My impression is that "fellow" had negative implications in the
>16th/17th C; implied low social status.  This impression is probably
>derived from a footnote to a Shakespearean or other Elizabethan play.

This of course is OED 10.c. "contemptuously. A person of no esteem or
worth.", dating from c1450, including Shakespeare (Richard III), and
continuing through the 18th and 18th centuries to B. Disraeli and
Dickens, with one cite from 1998.  But that's not what we're
discussing -- rather, the question is whether "fellow" *also* became
attached to Negroes (10.d).  The placement in the OED suggests that
perhaps 10.d. derived from 10.c.

>I also don't see that a description of a runaway slave as "a black
>fellow" indicates that "fellow" was reserved for blacks.  The
>default condition for human beings in the 17th C was white -- as it
>is now, come to think of it -- and so I wouldn't expect to find a
>notice for a runaway apprentice or indentured servant to specify
>"white fellow".

But there are *none*, even though there are many advertisements for
runaway whites, in contrast to many for runaway "Negro/mulatto/black" fellows.

George lists a selection of advertisements that refer to both "men"
and "fellows".  Yes there are a lot for "Negro men" -- 23,369 vs.
"only" 6,800 for "Negro/mulatto/black fellow".  That we wouldn't
expect to find runaway notices for "white fellows", and that there
are in fact none, cannot prove either that "white fellow" was applied
to white runaways or that it was not.  But the vastly different
numbers -- thousands vs. none -- are convincing to me.

Joel

------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org