There were Jewish slave traders, yes. But they were a tiny minority. The vast majority of European and American slave traders were Christian. So I have to question why you would mention Jewish slave traders here.

Slavery has historically been widespread on all inhabited continents, and not just Africa. So why note that fact? Similarly, it is a basic historical fact that African societies were deeply involved in the transatlantic slave trade.

So what? What does this have to do with a blog post about the end of U.S. slavery? I don't want to assume what point you might be making, but it almost sounds as though you're dismissing the history of U.S. chattel slavery by noting that there were other perpetrators who shared responsibility for it. Isn't this a bit like noting that southern U.S. slavery couldn't have existed without the active participation of many white northerners? It's true that many African societies were complicit in slavery—but many of those countries are ahead of the U.S. today in acknowledging that history.

Thank you for offering this comment, Jerry. Certainly you're right that Jewish merchants did NOT dominate the transatlantic slave trade, as is often claimed, and baseless allegations that they did are anti-Semitic.

However, there is no such claim here. Instead, it is noted that a Spanish slave trader has been described as "the Rothschild of slavery." This is a claim that his influence in the slave trade was akin to the extraordinary success of the Rothschild family in international banking.

This would be like saying that a Hollywood producer is "the Bill Gates of movie making." It wouldn't imply that Gates is involved, at all, in movie making, but that the producer's prominence in movie making is similar to Gates' influence in the tech industry.

You're absolutely right that the historical truth is vital in conversations like these. And that people often have a hard time accepting historical truths that don't fit their preconceived narratives.

To that end, yes, Africans taken across the Middle Passage were predominated enslaved by other Africans. But they were generally not "their own countrymen," but people from other societies entirely. This wasn't a coincidence, but is fundamental to how slavery has worked in most times and places in human history. We usually enslave the "other," foreigners if you will, and Africa was no exception. (There is also the fact that the enslavement of Africans was primarily driven by organized demand from abroad, but that's another matter.)

You're also correct that the history of Liberia is a painful one, although historians generally attribute that to a natural conflict between the area's longstanding inhabitants and the arrival of large numbers of strangers from across the ocean looking to colonize the land. It isn't as if family members were returning home, now is it? That sort of thinking would suggest that all inhabitants of an entire continent, and all of their descendants from anywhere else in the world, are fundamentally close kin, simply because of the social construct of "race."

Finally, there were no Irish slaves sent to the Americas by Great Britain. That's a myth. But as you yourself suggest, myths like this tend to persist because they fit preconceived narratives that people want to promote.

You're right, Homer does describe himself as being Greek. He also describes himself as being part black ... so that sounds like his ancestry includes both. 🙂

Thank you for ignoring my other incorrect statements.

Vi, what that episode proves is that Homer *thinks* of himself as white ... or finds it convenient to *talk* about himself as white ... or at least to do so when it's appropriate to be self-deprecating.

This doesn't mean he doesn't have a black ancestor--which, by the "one drop rule," would traditionally have him and his family classified as black. And as the episode discussed above makes plain, the Simpsons *do*, in fact, have a black ancestor who was enslaved.

Naturally, this is also just a television show, and its particulars can't be taken too seriously. But the social issues it touches on certainly can be!

I assume you're not actually trying to belittle the attempt to seek justice for the legacy of slavery and racism in the U.S. today, but genuinely confused about the nature of the effort.

Whether or not you agree with the movement for reparations for slavery and racial discrimination, it's about seeking restitution for these offenses from the government and society responsible for them, on behalf of those who, today, continue to suffer the consequences. The U.S. government, economy, and people derive benefits today from our history of enslavement and racial oppression, while the legacy of this history continues to plague black Americans. These facts are hard to dispute.

Obviously, Jews today no longer suffer the consequences of their distant ancestors' enslavement in ancient Egypt, nor do the government or people of Egypt today continue to benefit from those events, thousands of years ago. These facts, too, are hard to dispute.

Thank you, Robyn. To my knowledge, no historian has seen fit to devote the time to a book or article debunking the myth of coded underground railroad quilts. (There's little reason an academic would do so, given that there isn't any sophisticated scholarly argument to be made; there is essentially no evidence for the existence of these quilts, which were first described in a children's book.) However, it's apparent that the vast majority who have expressed an opinion dismiss the notion out of hand, and several leading historians have taken the time to point out why in articles for the general public:

Renowned Yale historian David Blight, for instance, has publicly objected to this myth: https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2007/02/01/prof-de....

And historian Giles R. Wright debunked this myth in public repeatedly before his death, most notably here: http://historiccamdencounty.com/ccnews11_doc_01a.....

Gelias, race is a social construct, and as such, its meaning can never be more, or less, than what any given society imparts to it.

Thus, the U.S. construction of race, in which those of mixed ancestry may "pass" as white but are traditionally not seen as being white, is neither more, or less, correct than the social view in which a European with one or more African ancestors is seen as racially white.

I'm sure many Europeans with African ancestry *would* laugh at being told they aren't white. Just as many Americans who are, genetically, just as white would laugh at being told they're white. These are equally valid social constructions of "race."

You also seem to suggest that you are "purely white," despite being of mixed European and African ancestry, because you "have nothing in common with black people." You seem to be articulating yet another view, that it is your cultural background which determines your race. (If I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "nothing in common," please let me know.)

In the U.S., race is traditionally seen as being about physical features and ancestry, so that a person may be "white" or "black" without necessarily having any affinity with cultures traditionally associated with those races. And, again, neither view can be more correct than the other, since both are inherently arbitrary social constructs.

I don't believe in censoring this blog, other than for language or spam, and I believe in offering a response to any ideas posted here, regardless of whether they appear sincere. So ....

No episodes of "The Simpsons" are designated as "canon" or not. On an episode that is as authentic as any other, it was clearly stated that the Simpsons are descended, in part, from enslaved people of African descent.

It's a myth that people have to have particular physical features if they are of a particular race. This myth stems from a false belief that race has a biological basis, as well as naiveté regarding what those of mixed race look like.

So, yes, the Simpson family are clearly drawn, in the context of their show, to appear racially white. That, however, says nothing whatsoever about their racial purity. Many white Americans have relatively recent African ancestors, and it's not necessarily visible on the outside.

I don't know what you're trying to say when you state that white Americans are a mixture of Europeans, Jews, and Native Americans. While race is an arbitrary social construct, it does have a fairly well-defined meaning, which can only be stretched so far. While white Americans can, of course, have Native American ancestry, that is, by definition, a racial mixing; and most white Americans don't have Native ancestry. Meanwhile, most white Americans aren't of Jewish ancestry, although of course many are. Moreover, Jewish identity isn't the same as race; there are many black African Jews, for instance, and a great many Jewish ancestors *were* European.

Meanwhile, most black Americans are, in fact, of mixed racial ancestry (with about 75% having European ancestors). Is that what you mean by "mulatto," which actually means having mixed black and white ancestry (thus, one *can't* be 79% black and 21% mulatto)?

Finally, there's nothing "Afro-centrist" about noting that a Simpsons episode discusses their enslaved ancestors, and African heritage. This would be, at most, "Afro-acknowledging" or "Afro-non-denying." You should try it. :-)