The Heptanesian poetry of the 19th century

Disclaimer

The article below was originally written in the form of an undergraduate assignment for the Greek Open University in 2005, during a period when the author's academic skills were still under development. Although the quality of this article does not match the quality of later examples of the same author's work, it is written in a thorough manner and contains useful information to nowadays students and other readers with non-specialised knowledge; therefore, it has been proudly included on this website.

The reader needs to be warned that the original assignment, on which this article was based on, was written in Greek and was intended to be read by specialised academics. Despite the author's best intentions to present his essay in the clearest way possible, some points and arguments might still be lost in translation. The author recommends that for any unknown words or specialised vocabulary, the readers should refer to the web for additional information.

The author admits that the bibliography for this article is limited, matching the requirements of an undergraduate assignment of this level. The author did not include any additional bibliography during the translation of his work in English due to time and access limitations. It must also be noted that the original bibliography for this article was studied from translated copies in Greek; therefore, the page numbers suggested in the citations below match the page numbers of the translated copies and not the original volumes.

Introduction

This study focuses on two separate issues associated with the Heptanesian poetry school of the 19th century. For those unfamiliar with the term, the Heptanesian School comprises a group of 19th century Greek-speaking scholars, writers and artists, who were active in the Ionian islands during the early years of the newly-funded Greek state. Some of its representatives were born before the beginning of the Greek War of Independence in 1821, while it needs to be stressed that all of them grew up on foreign (non-Greek) territories.

For historical reference, the Ionian islands were under Venetian rule until 1797; they switched to French, Russian, French again, and finally British hands during the course of the Napoleonic Wars; they formed a semi-independent British protectorate between 1815 and 1864 know as the United States of the Ionian Islands; and finally, in 1864 they were united with the Kingdom of Greece. It is important to note that the Ionian islands never came under Ottoman rule and the representatives of the Heptanesian School never witnessed Ottoman oppression as this occurred in parts of Mainland Greece during the same period.

The first issue discussed in this study is the thematology and morphological characteristics of Heptanesian poetry, and its connection with the broader tendencies in Heptanesian literature of this period. After a general introduction to those characteristics, the paper focuses on three texts: excerpts 1 and 3 from the second draft of The Free Besieged (Οι Ελεύθεροι Πολιορκημένοι) by Dionysios Solomos (1798-1857); the poem The Oath (Ο Όρκος) by Gerasimos Markoras (1826-1911); and the poem Foteinos (Φωτεινός = Bright) by Aristotelis Valaoritis (1824-1879).

The second issue discussed in this study is the understating of the term ‘other’, ‘foreign’ or ‘enemy’ in the above compositions by Dionysios Solomos and Aristotelis Valaoritis, bearing in mind the perspectives of the two poets and the messages they wish to convey. The Oath by Gerasimos Markoras is a poem that does not engage directly with the idea of a foreign enemy; therefore, the discussion is limited to the works of Solomos and Markoras.

The final section of this study concludes on the work of the three Heptanesian poets and comments on their perception of contemporary prototypes. Furthermore, it summarises the popular views among the representatives of the Heptanesian School in relation to what they viewed as the homeland’s foreign enemy.

The general characteristics of Heptanesian poetry

The Heptanesian poetry of the 19th century is characterised by a plethora of influences from traditions of the Greek mainland and from Western Europe. There is an Italian influence in pre-Romantic elements, which associate with early Neoclassicism of the 18th century. The German influence is noted in idealistic elements, which associate with 19th century Romanticism. The ideas of patriotism and liberalism, which form the core of Heptanesian poetry, most likely associate with early Romanticism and ideas that pre-existed the French Revolution of 1789 (Garantoudis 2000, 42).

After 1830 in particular, the romantic and idealistic elements prevail in Heptanesian poetry: there is an idealisation of artistic forms; an incorporation of topics from popular culture; the use of the unofficial spoken Greek language of that period (the Demotiki) 1; an emphasis in the psychology of the protagonists; an attempt to explore the human psyche; a detailed description of extreme psychological conditions in analogy with extreme natural phenomena; and finally, the wider segmentation of the compositions (Garantoudis 2000, 43-4).

In association with the literature of mainland Greece, Heptanesian poetry forms a continuum with previously established traditions. Heptanesian poetry carries elements from the ancient Greek literature and language; it is associated with Cretan post-medieval poetry (Erotokritos, Voskopoula, Erophili); and finally, it is connected with folk music from the Greek mainland (Garantoudis 2000, 42). Under the influence of Greek folk songs, the demotika, Heptanesian poetry is composed in the commonly spoken Greek language of the 19th century, often containing local idioms. This language represents the national identity of the rural Greek territories and is first introduced in Heptanesian poetry by Dionysios Solomos (Garantoudis 2000, 46-8). The use of the iambic 15-syllable verse is an element that is borrowed from ancient Greek and medieval Cretan traditions; however, in Heptanesian poetry iambic verses are combined with rhyme due to evident Italian influences (Garantoudis 2000, 49-50).

The content of Heptanesian poetry is divided in three thematic circles. The first circle is patriotic and associates with expressions of love, devotion and self-sacrifice for one’s homeland. The second circle is religious and associates with the manifestations of faith in Greek Orthodox Christianity. The third circle is erotic and associates with women and love. All thematic circles include patriotic elements inspired by the Greek War of Independence. Due to their devotion to the Greek vision, Heptanesian poets praise the ideas of freedom and independence for the Greeks. This attitude reflects the philosophical ideas of European Romanticism and Idealism, and is characterised by a shift towards folk tradition and local creativity (Garantoudis 2000, 43-4).

The Free Besieged by Dionysios Solomos

The Free Besieged belongs the mature phase of Dionysios Solomos. His mature phase is defined as the two decades following his arrival in Corfu in 1828, a period when the poet is strongly influenced by his studies on German Romanticism. The composition is written in lyric style and describes the situation inside the besieged town of Mesologgi a little before the heroic counter-attack (The Exodus) in April 1826 (Beaton 1996, 71). The poet’s source of inspiration is a historical fact taken from the Greek War of Independence.

The Free Besieged follows the general characteristics of Heptanesian poetry noted in the previous section. Solomos employs an iambic 15-syllable verse borrowed from folk songs of the Greek mainland and Cretan poetry, which he combines with Italian coupled rhyme: “Άκρα του τάφου σιωπή στον κάμπο βασιλεύει. Λαλεί πουλί, παίρνει σπυρί, κι’ η μάνα το ζηλεύει” (Solomos, The Free Besieged, Ex.1, 2). The composition is written in Demotiki and contains popular verbal forms and every-day expression, e.g. “ Λαλεί πουλί, παίρνει σπυρί...” (Solomos, The Free Besieged, Ex.1, 2), including words from Ancient Greek “…στα μάτια η μάνα μνέει” (Solomos, The Free Besieged, Ex.1, 3). The poem’s theme is the struggle for freedom and the love for one’s homeland, two ideas that mark the Greek War of Independence.

The influence of Romanticism in the composition by Solomos is noted in the description of events by simulation to natural phenomena, e.g. “Τέλος μακριά σέρνει λαλία, σαν το πεσούμεν΄ άστρο” (Solomos, The Free Besieged, Ex.1, 11). Furthermore, the text is full of Romantic elements, such as the struggle against one’s biological needs (e.g. food deprivation and exhaustion), the overcoming of mental fear, self-sacrifice for freedom and redemption through death (Politis 2003, 148-9). Such ideas are not only noted in The Free Besieged, but appear in most patriotic compositions that follow in later years. Finally, the impact of European Romanticism on Dionysios Solomos is noted in the segmented nature of his composition (Veloudis 1989, 389-95).

The Oath by Gerasimos Markoras

Gerasimos Markoras belongs to the circle of Heptanesian poets who were directly influenced by Dionysios Solomos. It is historically attested that both poets were friends and also shared mutual family ties (Politis 2003, 163). The Oath not only follows the general trends of Heptanesian poetry discussed in the beginning of this paper, but also copies the style of Dionysios Solomos.

The theme is the love story between two youths and is based on the Heptanesian triptych ‘love-woman-death’, presented in an idealised manner: “Αλοιά, και ποιος θα σε δεχτή και ποιος θα σ’ αγκαλιάση, στα γονικά σου φτάνοντας, διπλόρφανο κοράσι; Ο νέος, που φλόγα σ’ άναψε μεσ’ την καρδιά μεγάλη, Εβγήκε τάχα ζωντανός από την άγρια πάλη;” (Markoras, The Otah, 41-4).

The story takes place at the periphery of the the Greek War of Independence, and more specifically during the Cretan Revolt of 1866, during which the Arkadi Monastery was torched by the Ottoman armies (Garantoudis 2001, 38). The combination of a love story and a patriotic story shows that the theme of the poem not only associates with love for women, but also with love for one’s homeland. Furthermore, there is mention to the Christian religion, “Όπου ο σταυρός νικήθηκε του Τούρκου από τ’ αστέρι” (Markoras, The Oath, 6) and a direct statement on another triptych of Heptanesian poetry in verse 54, ‘religion-homeland-love’, “Θρησκεία, Πατρίδα κ’ Έρωτας...” ( Markoras, The Oath, 54).

The poem is written in Demotiki and is enriched with regional vocabulary from the Cretan dialect, e.g. the word “korasi”, which is used instead of “koritsi” (girl). The text’s structure follows the style of Dionysios Solomos: the verses consist of typical iambic 15-syllables with coupled rhyme.

As with other examples of Heptanesian poetry, The Oath is under strong Romantic influence, noted in the use of similes that describe emotional and psychological struggles in the forms of natural phenomena, e.g. “Κι’ εκεί που σιγοτρέμουνε σά λυγερό καλάμι...” (Markoras, The Oath, 267). The philosophical spirit of 19th century Romanticism is also noted in the final victory of love. In the composition by Markoras, love prevails despite the defeat of one’s homeland, his subjugation to the enemy and his final exile.

As noted by Beaton (1996, 76), The Oath is likely to be a continuation of the incomplete poem The Cretan, by Dionysios Solomos. In that sense, both poems are probably segments based on the same plot, following a deliberate thematic segmentation, which is characteristic of Heptanesian Romanticism.

Foteinos (Bright) by Aristotelis Valaoritis

Aristotelis Valaoritis belongs to the non-Solomic school of Heptanesian poets, which means that he was never directly influenced by Dionysios Solomos (Garantoudis 2000, 39). Still, he follows the Heptanesian traditions and uses some of the poetic conventions established by his predecessors.

Foteinos is the only composition by Valaoritis that was never completed, yet, it is an important composition to understand his style. The story is based on a true historical event and associates with a local revolt against the Franks (2) at the island of Lefkada during the 14th century (Politis 1996, 165-6); therefore, the poem’s theme is patriotic.

In relation to his writing style, Valaoritis combines the daily language of his homeland, the Heptanesian Demotiki, with elements from the traditional folk music of mainland Greece. His composition is in iambic 15-syllable verse in paired rhyme: “Τον έζωσαν τα κύματα κ’ έβραζε γύρα-γύρα, μελανιασμένη, ακράτητη η ανθρώπινη πλημμύρα” (Valaoritis, Foteinos, 142-3). The use of localised grammatical forms, such as the verbs “εγρούζανε” (were growling) and “αλυχτούσαν” (were barking) in verse 145, attests the use of spoken idioms of the rural Heptanese.

The Romantic character of the poem is noted in the description of events with the use of similes borrowed from natural phenomena. In the previously mentioned verses 142-3, the angry Frankish mob that encircles Foteinos is described as a human flood. This simile is used to express the protagonist’s perspective and to emphasise his psychological stress as he is being captured. The poem’s main theme is the resistance against the homeland’s enemies and negligence of fear of death, which are noted with another simile in verse 140: “κι’ εκείνος μένει ασάλευτος, σα βράχος που προσμένει”. Despite his old age, Foteinos is willing to fight against the enemies as this is a fight for justice; therefore, he gets in a dangerous situation with the Frankish mob.

By contrast to Solomos, who is inspired by German Romanticism, Valoritis follows the French Romantic prototypes; therefore, he focuses on the protagonist’s heroic actions, on scenes of dramatic passion and scenes of severe violence (Garantoudis 2000, 39): “...Εγρούζανε, αλυχτούσαν οι σκύλοι μεσ’ τα πόδια του, και μάτωναν το δόντι εις την σκληρή τη σάρκα του. Και συριγμοί και βρόντοι” (Valaoritis, Foteinos, 145-7).

Finally, one might argue that the incomplete form of Foteinos follows the broader segmentation noted in Heptanesian poetry, resembling the works of Markoras and Solomos. However, the segmentation of Foteinos is purely coincidental, as this was Valaoritis’ last composition and the only one that he could not complete. By contrast, the segmentation in the works by the other two Heptanesian poets is deliberate and noted more than once in their compositions (Garantoudis 2000, 39).

The image of the ‘other’, ‘foreign’, ‘enemy’ in Heptanesian poetry

As noted in the previous sections, the patriotic thematology of Heptanesian poetry derives from European Romanticism and is directly associated with the Greek War of Independence. This relationship generates specific perspectives regarding the nature of the ‘other-foreign-enemy’, which differs across the representatives of the Heptanesian School. Such different perspectives are most likely due to the different chronological periods that the poets live in, also connected with the different spectra of their personal experiences. A comparison between The Free Besieged by Solomos and Foteinos by Valaoritis is ideal to demonstrate this issue.

Dionysios Solomos composes The Free Besieged in 1826, at the same period during which the siege of Mesologgi is taking place (Garantoudis 2000, 67). During this period, the poet lives in Zakynthos (Zante), which is in relative proximity with the bay of Mesologgi; therefore, a chronological and geographical connection can be established in relation to his source of inspiration. Although contacts and communication during that time are not as frequent as nowadays, it can be assumed that stories from the siege of Mesologgi were reported or reproduced by various means. Therefore, it is not an exaggeration to say that Solomos witnesses the events of the siege from a close distance, which probably affects his understanding of who the foreign enemy is.

Solomos calls the enemy “Agarenos” (αγαρηνός) (Solomos, the Free Besieged, Ex.1, 6), a name that associates with non-Christian foreigners of ‘barbaric’ ancestry. In the comments by Polylas on the third excerpt of the second draft of the Free Besieged there is mention of a certain “Arab” (αράπης) (3) at the enemy’s camp, who is shouting against the besieged in order to break their morale (Solomos, The Free Besieged, Ex.3, notes, taken from Garantoudis 2000, 36). Both names used by Solomos, Agarenos and Arab, stress the religious, cultural and perhaps racial differences between the besieged and their foreign enemies. Furthermore, such expressions could describe the lack of homogeneity in the Ottoman army, as opposed to the Greek defenders of the besieged town, who are all locals and share the same religion, language and cultural beliefs.

In Solomos’ composition, the foreign enemy of the Free Besieged is not only the army of the Ottoman besiegers. The worst enemy of all is hunger and other biological deprivations, which harden the survival and the resistance of the besieged population. Solomos (The Free Besieges, Ex.1, 3-4) describes the effect of food deprivation, which darkens the eyes, and speaks about the broken morale of the crying warrior: “Τα μάτια η πείνα εμαύρισε στα μάτια η μάνα μνέει, στέκει ο Σουλιώτης ο καλός παράμερα και κλαίει”. Furthermore, the survival of the Free Besieged is threaten by esoteric enemies, which are their own doubts and own fears, depleting their courage: “Σάλπιγγα κοψ’ του τραγουδιού τα μάγια με βία, Γυναικός, γέροντος, παιδιού, μη κόψουν την ανδρεία” (Solomos, The Free Besieges, Ex.3, 1-2).

To sum up, the human enemy in the composition by Dionysios Solomos is an army of ‘others’, who share different religious and cultural beliefs compared to the besieged Greeks in the town of Mesologgi. Furthermore, there is perhaps an understanding of the enemy as a racially different ‘other’, who is likely to coincide with the peoples, which the ancient Greeks described as barbarians. On the other hand, Solomos describes some non-human enemies of the Free Besieged, which are their poor living conditions and their psychological fears. It is important to note that under such conditions, the enemy of the Free Besieged turns out to be their own selves. The description of the foreign enemy is completely different in relation to the composition by Aristotelis Valaoritis.

Foteinos by Aristotelis Valaoritis is composed in 1879, when Greece is an independent and fully recognised nation-state, and the Ionian islands are also part of this state. The composition relates to the poet’s own homeland, the island of Lefkada, and the plot unfolds at a time quite distant to him. The composition speaks about the resistance of the Lefkadiots against the ‘Franks’ during the 14th century AD (Beaton 1996, 78); therefore, the perception of the events and the understanding of the foreign enemy by Aristotelis Valaoritis is fictional.

Unlike Solomos, who uses strong language to stress the cultural, religious and perhaps racial differences between the Greeks and their foreign enemies, Valaoritis purposely avoids extreme characterisations. Instead, he employs milder expressions to name the enemies of the Lefkadiots as damned-Franks (παλιόφραγκοι) (Valaoritis, Foteinos, 17) and foreigners (ξένοι) (Valaoritis, Foteinos, 25). It can be argued that Valaoritis does not communicate the same passion, or perhaps hatred, for the foreign enemies as Solomos does. This is most likely due to a couple of reasons.

Firstly, there is great chronological distance between the poet and the historical events of the Lefkadiot revolt, which took place five centuries earlier. This lack of immediacy explains the lack of passion between Valaoritis’ composition and the Free Besieged by Solomos. Secondly, there is a deliberate intention not to tarnish the reputation of the ‘Franks’ to the Greek audience, at least by name. The 14th century ‘Franks’, who were in reality the Venetians, were those who protected the Ionian islands, which never came under Ottoman rule in later years. Furthermore, the 19th century ‘Franks’ (at least as they are named in contemporary Greek literature) are in reality the French. France not only took over the Ionian islands from the Venetians and prevented the Ottoman expansion, but also inspired the Greek scholars of the 19th century with the ideas of the French revolution. Such ideas were translated in Greek and disseminated to the Greek-speaking parts of the Ottoman empire, which finally led to the Greek War of Independence.

Summary and conclusions

Dionysios Solomos, Gerasimos Markoras and Aristotelis Valaoritis are typical representatives of the Heptanesian School. Their works follow distinct features of Heptanesian poetry, which were originally introduced by the eldest of the three, Dionysios Solomos. Such features include the use of patriotic thematology; the assimilation of local and rural traditions, particularly from Cretan literature and mainland Greek folk songs (e.g. the use of iambic 15-syllable verse); the assimilation of Western European traditions (e.g. the use of Italian rhyme); and finally, the communication of ideas associated with Western European Romanticism. In relation to the latter, Heptanesian poetry portrays idealised characters; it is written in rural daily-spoken language; it conveys the ideas of liberalism, it embarks on a philosophical quest to the human psyche; it borrows similes from natural phenomena and incorporates the forces of nature; and finally, it is characterised by deliberate segmentation.

The perception of the foreign enemy in the works of Solomos and Valaoritis differs due to the chronological distance between the poets and the enemies they describe, and also due to their personal experiences. Solomos, who is contemporary to the events of the siege of Mesologgi, has a stricter and more direct approach as opposed to Valaoritis, who uses past events from a purely fictional and historical point of view. Furthermore, Solomos lives in a British protectorate but is deeply inspired by his Greek identity; therefore, he is emotional about the struggles of his fellow Greeks and he expresses his direct support during their uprising against the Ottomans. By contrast, Valaoritis lives in a fully independent and officially recognised Greek state during a relatively peaceful period, and his approach to his ‘foreign enemy’ is not as emotionally charged as that of Solomos.

Bibliography

Anastasiadou, A., 2000, ‘The 1880s generation. Prose – Poetry’, in Garantoudis, E. (ed.) Letters II: Modern Greek Philology (19th and 20th century). Modern Greek Literature (19th and 20th century). Study Manual, Patra: Greek Open University, 133-54.
Beaton, R., 1996, An Introduction to Modern Greek Literature: Poetry and Prose, 1821-1992 , translated by Zgourou, M. and Spanaki, M., Athens: Nepheli
Garantoudis, E., 2000, ‘The Heptanesian poetry of the 19th century. General Characteristics’, Garantoudis, E. (ed.) Letters II: Modern Greek Philology (19th and 20th century). Modern Greek Literature (19th and 20th century). Study Manual, Patra: Greek Open University, 29-58.
Politis, L., 2003, The History of Modern Greek Literature, 13th edition, Athens: Morphotiko Idryma Ethnikis Trapezis.
Veloudis, G., 1989, D. Solomos. Romantic Poetry and Poetics. The German Sources, Athens: Gnosi

Notes

1. For the non-Greek readers, it must to be clarified that the so-called ‘Linguistic Issue’ troubled modern Greek scholars for decades and carried on until 1976, when the Greek government enforced the use of Demotiki in the public education system by law. Even before the foundation of the modern Greek nation-state in 1829, scholars debated on what language was appropriate for the state’s functions. This resulted to a linguistic debate. The official Greek state and its administration adopted a constructed language, the Kathareuousa (καθαρεύουσα = cleansed), which was originally supposed to be the daily spoken Greek language of the time, though ‘cleansed’ from Ottoman influences. As the years passed by, Kathareuousa was being constantly enriched with archaic elements borrowed from ancient Greek and some adapted Western European loans that associated with popular innovations of the time. Kathareuousa was in constant interaction with another written language of this period, the Atticising Greek, which was the official language of the Greek Orthodox Church and associated with the Hellenistic Koine. On the other side of the linguistic debate was a third language, the Demotiki (δημοτική = popular). This was the unofficial daily-spoken language of the Greek people, which was prone to dialect variations and multi-cultural linguistic loans. As opposed to Kathareuousa, which was a constructed language, Demotiki was a natural language, which was spoken and written by most of the non-scholarly people; therefore, the adoption of an ‘official’ and an ‘unofficial’ language by the state divided the population and created a series of other problems in due time, which were supposedly normalised in 1976. In relation to the topic under consideration, it must be noted that the Heptanesian writers of the 19th century were never taught Kathareuousa because the Ionian islands had not been part of the Greek state up until 1864; therefore, the only Greek language they knew and used was Demotiki.
   Although this statement does not related to the topic, it is the author’s personal view that Demotiki was not normalised even after 1976. The Demotiki that was introduced in the education system in the late 20th century was in reality an ‘officialisation’ of the ‘Athenian’ idiom and neglected the variations of other Greek dialects, which were gradually ‘un-officialised’. The problem is still evident in informal written Greek, e.g. in local newspapers and websites, where the non-Athenian idioms still survive. For example, in modern Greek, the official present tense of the verb “to say” is “λέγω”; however, most of the population omits the -γ- and pronounces the verb as “λέω”, which is an idiom associated with the Aegean islands. This small detail causes an obvious problem when one inclines the two different forms of the same verb. The present tense varies as follows: singular λέγω – λέγεις – λέγει, plural λέγο(υ)με – λέγετε – λέγουν. This is vaguely the same as: singular λέω – λες – λέει, plural λέμε – λέτε – λέν(ε). Furthermore, the official inclination of the same verb in past perfect plural is “λέγαμε – λέγατε – έλεγαν”; however, a lot of people nowadays, still use the Aegean idiom and they incline the verb as “λέγαμε – λέγατε – λέγανε”. In Greek academia, at least when I was an undergraduate student, the use of the Aegean idiom was marked wrong.

2. It must be noted that the historical names used by the Greek scholars of the 19th century, and even earlier scholars, are anachronistic. Such historical names of foreign peoples, places and lands copy older names noted in Byzantine literature. Furthermore, there seems to be a gap in the understanding of the historical events and the evolution of the Western European political landscape, particularly from the 11th century onwards, when various parts of the Byzantine Empire were gradually being captured or annexed by foreign rulers. In Western European scholarship, the Franks are described as a Germanic nation of the 4th century AD; after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the Franks consolidated the Merovingian Kingdom (AD 481-751), which then evolved to the Carolingian Empire (751–843). In Greek scholarship the word ‘Franks’ is used indiscriminately, to describe almost every nation that lived in Central and Western Europe between the 5th and the 15th centuries AD. In this particular case, the ‘Franks’ by Aristotelis Valaoritis associate with the Venetian rule of the Heptanese.

3. In 21st century Greece, the word Arapis (Αράπης = Arab) has strong racial connotations; it is regarded offensive and is officially never used. Of course, this was not the case in 1826, when naming ‘others’ of foreign identity with such names was a way for the Greeks to define their ‘own’ identity. In modern Greek popular culture the word Arapis is mistranslated as Negro. In reality, the word is a lot older than the era of Western European slave-trade and colonisation. In ancient Greek literature the word Ἄραψ means person with ‘burnt’ face. During the Hellenistic period, the word was used to define peoples with dark skins and probably became the name of the inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula. In later years, this differentiation expanded in a racial, religious and cultural manner. Personally, I have serious doubts that Dionysios Solomos used this word with the intention to undermine and ridicule his ‘foreign enemies’ due to the colour of their skin.