Letter to the Editor: I was London’s first African local mayor – not Battersea’s John Archer

It is with this in mind that I believe as a past mayor and a privileged Honorary Alderman, I equally have a societal responsibility to join historian Kwaku as per article published -Wednesday 3rd April - in celebrating 100 years of John Archer’s participation in English (British) Politics.

I wish to particularly celebrate part of  John Archer's mayoral acceptance speech of 1913, in which he said the following: “For the first time in the history of English nation, a man of colour has been elected as Mayor of an English Borough.

“That news will go forth to all coloured nations of the world and they will look at Battersea and say it is the greatest thing that you have done. You have shown that you have no racial prejudice but recognise a man for what you think he has done.''

A significant evidence that the London Borough of Wandsworth has an established cultural history of  welcoming and involving all, regardless of race, gender, religious belief, or ethnic / country of origin.

For example Huguenots refugees who found Wandsworth a safe place to settle.

Likewise the Polish community for whose sake the eagle appears on Wandsworth Mayoral chain of office.

I certainly felt at home in Wandsworth.

Has Wandsworth changed for the worse? No - Wandsworth is never complacent.

Wandsworth’s inequality strategy works.

The success deserves celebration. We cannot celebrate John Archer without celebrating Battersea and Wandsworth. I was a Battersea Councillor who represented Balham Ward for more than a decade.

However for historical accuracy, I wish to state that  John Archer - in my opinion was not an African.

The record of the Old Battersea has no evidence of John Archer describing himself as an African.

Perhaps in those days it was not trendy to be African.

In his own words he emphasized that he was Lancastrian bred, (born and bred in Liverpool) a man of colour with interest in helping coloured nations of the world.

In today's Britain, identification is a matter for individuals not for others without the authority of the subject being identified.

Historical written evidence shows that John Archer did not even describe himself as a black man.

His mother was Irish Catholic, and father was from Barbados.

He was involved in a short lived Pan-African movement. This role does not today make him an African.

There are many non-blacks or to use John Archer's words – people of no colour who promoted and still promotes pan-Africanism as well as campaign for measurable equality between all sections of  local and international communities including black & whites.

William Wilberforce - a person of no colour , a fine English gentleman was neither black or African, yet he campaigned tirelessly until he was on his death bed for the end of the slave trade.

It is about time his contribution becomes an annual event. John Archer is less of an African man in comparison with many Tooting-based persons of Asian descent who were born and bred in Mombasa, Uganda etc, and of course African-born children of colonial friends (missionaries) of Africa - certainly more African than John Archer.

John was not born in Africa, although decribed as a man who travelled the world, he did so, for occupational reasons, he and his father never visited Africa in a private capacity.

Sadly, Africa was a continent perceived to be and described by many West Indians of John Archer's days as a jungle.

The generation of John Archer's days believed Africans lived on trees and saw us as inferior.

Perhaps I should state that I am a full blood African born in Yorubaland of Nigeria from a Royal Ancestry. Not ashamed to say that my ancestors were major slave traders  (evidence in Yoruba Language)

They traded in slaves between Oyo Town, Lagos and Bahia, Brazil.

Truth is bitter, however, with the authority of my ancestors and as a custodian of African tradition and heritage I wish to reiterate a long established position of the continent.

Anyone who cannot state the tribe/clan to which he or she belongs is not an African. The evidence can be ancestral.

John Archer’s own evidence lacks concrete evidence.

Africans are tribal and very territorial people. The word African consists of many communities who are different in many ways, hardly agree with one another because of justifiable entrenched cultural and spiritual beliefs.

Africa is made up of many communities who do not belong to the same melting pot. A legitimate claim to the word African requires evidence of a tribal origin including dialect ( language), the village of origin, family compound and name.

Perhaps in matriarchal parts of Africa John Archer would be an Irish English man.

May I therefore suggest that while celebrating John Archer it is important to include evidence of his African identity from his own record.

No offence John Archer was a man of colour, not African.

Erelu Lola Ayonrinde