Thank you all for participating in this AMA! Suffice to say, I am incredibly excited that you have chosen to take questions here at AskHistorians. There are about a million questions I could ask, but I'm going to be good and restrict myself to two:

• Helen Taylor has argued that Roots should in a way be read as a "black Gone With the Wind", asserting that rather than being a radical departure from existing literary conventions, Alex Haley's work "adopted and adapted" the genre of the white plantation novel. For Taylor, this means the novel is fundamentally (though she does not seem to think fatally) compromised because it cannot escape the structure and ideological power of the white narrative. Others like Michael Blayney have accused Haley of writing Kunta Kinte in the tradition of stories of the "noble savage", exotic but utterly unchallenging to white audiences. What are your thoughts this kind of critical conception of Haley's account? To what kind of cultural and literary tradition should we say Roots belongs to, and what does that mean for how we engage with the story?

• The original Roots mini-series adaptation was criticised by some for having its presentation sanitised for a white audience, with deliberate editorial choices trying to balance a desire to capture the essence of the novel without upsetting white viewers too much. How do you feel the new series fares in terms of capturing the experience of slavery and the essence of Haley's work, and how does it substantially from the older adaptation of the novel - if at all?

• We are all very much aware of the character of Kunta Kinte; he has become ingrained in American, even to an extent British culture as an iconic literary and television character. But I was hoping we might be able to talk a little about the women of Roots, too. How does the new show - or the old show, or the novel, whichever you'd prefer to discuss - deal with the experience of enslaved women in your view? What stands out to you as having been done well, and what could be done better? Are there any glaring failures or outstanding successes of representation in your mind?

In the interests of full disclosure: I'm British, so haven't seen the new series, and I don't personally agree with the Taylor/Blayney interpretation of Roots (I take a much more positive view of what the novel tries to achieve and how it does that). But I'd be fascinated to hear whatever thoughts and insights you have to offer on these questions!

Thanks so much for participating here!

One of the things that is commonly pointed to as a horror of slavery is that masters were free to, and often did, split families apart, selling men and women to different owners without regard to their children. It also seems to be the case that slave labor was divided along gender lines, with women generally performing different types of work than men, and men sometimes being rented out to other owners or overseers for large amounts of time. So this leads to a couple of questions:

• On large plantations with many slaves, how did that gendered division of labor play into how slave society constructed itself?

• In smaller-scale slavery, such as the owner who only owned one, two or a few slaves, was labor divided by gender as well? Did those slaves form a community within the context of their farm/village/locality, as they would on larger plantations?

Thanks for doing this! We really appreciate you taking the time out of your careers to share your expertise on these fascinating subjects.

I wanted to ask a somewhat sensitive question that has been percolating in my mind since I discovered the issue over a year ago. Namely the issue of Alex Haley and the presence of plagiarism in Roots.

Alex Haley was accused of and sued for plagiarism. It is my understanding that he settled at least one case and even admitted incorporating that author's work into his own.

1. To what degree, if at all, was Roots actually plagiarized? (e.g. Just a basic concept, specific ideas, or whole passages?) I found out that he had been accused of this after I looked him up online in regards to another work of his that affected me quite profoundly (The Autobiography of Malcolm X, in which he played a collaborative and editorial role). I do not entirely trust the sources I have come across thus far, as many seem to be very obviously gunning either to exonerate or stamp out Haley's legacy, and would like a more balanced appraisal.

2. How is the issue of Haley's plagiarism handled both now and back when the story first broke? To whatever degree he may have taken from the work of others, I don't think anyone would say that his work was suddenly made irrelevant. It obviously struck an important cord with a lot of people and probably still frames how many non-historians view the issues it portrayed. As such I am curious how academics deal with this issue, which obviously lends itself quite easily to dismissive polemics against the very disturbing history that Haley dwelled on in his work.

3. How does this change (or does this change) Roots significance or cultural value as a work of historical fiction? I guess what I'm trying to get at is how this affects the legacy of Roots both culturally and in terms of what it has meant to many people for whom reading the book was a seminal moment in their personal and intellectual lives.

Thanks for the answer(s) and sorry to drop such heavy questions so early on.

Howdy!

Thank you all very much for taking the time to answer our questions. I'm wondering about several factors.

Was there any societal or demographic damage done to the African communities/cultures/nations that the enslaved populations were drawn from? I can only imagine the force emigration of millions of people would have some effect but I don't see much of it commented on.

What was the linguistic assimilation process like for the newly arrived slaves? As in Roots, Kunta Kinte does not arrive speaking English. At any given point before 1807 when the trade was largely stopped, what percentage of slaves on a plantation would be native Africans and non-English speakers? How long did their native languages persist? Did any slave holders/importers have a process for English learning or was it just beat into people? I've read that Gullah is still extant and carries a great deal of African influence.

I love Gerald Horne's The Counter-Revolution of 1776, but how does it stack up academically? What would you recommend for learning about resistance to slavery?

When reading accounts of slavery in the American South before 1860, I'm always fascinated about stories that explain that a slave was hired out by his/her master and paid a wage for extra work. What were the advantages of this for the slaveowners, and how did this program work? Could slaves feasibly and reliably save enough money for their liberation? How much agency did they have?

Thank you all very much for this AMA. I hope you don't mind me asking questions regarding the depiction of slavery in other shows and films.

•What are some common misconceptions about American slavery?

•How accurate is the portrayal of the British Army's treatment of black soldiers in Roots and in AMC's Turn?

•What would have been the value of a skilled slave, for example a blacksmith, compared to an unskilled slave?

•In the show Underground, one of the slaves mentions being born on a "breed farm", did such places exist?

•Before the invention of the cotton gin, was the cotton industry considered a profitable industry in the US, and if not what other industries would have used slave labour on a large scale.

•How prevalent was it for freedmen to own slaves?

Thank you again for this AMA!

In the book Caliban and the Witch, the author claims that enslaved women in the Caribbean would often be contributing a significant amount to their islands economy simply through the production of food and goods on the personal plots they would be allowed to manage (outside their forced labor). Can you elaborate more on this claim if it is true? Was there something similar in the US?

Glad to have you! Well done to our mod team for getting this together, and warmest welcomes to our guests. I hope you stick around beyond the AMA. (And Zot Zot, Professor Millward)

I'm curious about the context of the airing of the original series. I don't have a really specific question other than "What was going on with racial politics in the 1970s, and how did the original series fit into (or stick out from?) the discourses of race at the time?" I'll leave the question broad as an invitation to emphasize whatever aspects you think are most important.

Hello all, and thanks for doing this AMA! I'm always excited to hear from experts about stuff I don't know about. :)

It seems like stories about slavery have had spikes in popularity in the US during those times when the status or perception of black people was undergoing significant change or stress, and so I would be surprised if they didn't reflect the hopes and anxieties of the time period, with both the white and black communities alike.

Exploring that a topic that broad is probably worth many books or theses, so I'll try to ask something specific--but I would love to hear any thoughts on that broader topic that you might be excited to share with a lay audience, especially if my question is heading off towards a dead-end.

But for a narrow question: how have representations of black sexuality changed throughout the changing generations of slave stories? In particular, from my understanding black sexuality has been seen as ambiguously threatening and liberating, depending on who is looking at what time and on which gender. And, to be even more particular, I'd be really interested in hearing about depictions of queer/trans sexuality.

In other words, how have depictions of black men and women's sexualities differed from each other and over time in these narratives, and how did they relate to the social shifts accompanying such stories?

Also, given the major shift the US is currently undergoing regarding attitudes towards black folks, has there been a similar shift in historiography regarding slavery and black history to accompany it?

Hello all and thanks for this AMA

• What can you tell us about the division of labour between lighter and darker slaves. To what extent is the narrative of 'house negroes' and 'field negroes' true? Where lighter slaves born or descended from white masters would be given easier and supervisory work roles over their darker brethren and can you offer any reading into development of this?

• I often read about African slavery and it's reach into the interior. To what extent was this caused by collapsing African nations being conquered by colonial countries and saving themselves from slavery by enslaving others, and to what extent was it a normal part of African pre-European contact life?

• What are the differences if any between slavery on the African continent and slavery in the Americas? Was American/Caribbean slavery, chattel slavery from the beginning or did it develop that way over time and if so why?

In the book and the tv show, it's mentioned often about white slave owners raping their female slaves, even fathering children with them. I was under the impression that sexual relations between white and black people were illegal at the time, as well as being morally objectionable. If so, were there ever cases of slave owners being brought up on charges? Wives protesting their husbands' philandering? Churches coming down against the practice? Were there ever any recorded legal consequences for this kind of rape?

Thanks for doing this! I've seen both productions of Roots, the original when I was a college student at the time of its premiere. Each does a stellar job of provoking thought and reflection on and about slavery and race in America.

What I'm left wondering about and have seen precious little attention given to in mainstream sources is slavery in the northern colonies/states.

There are many questions that come to mind, but perhaps it is best to start with fundamentals. In what ways did slavery in the north differ from southern plantation slavery? Beyond the root (no pun intended) issue at hand what were the similarities?

Can you explain how the slave trade in Cuba worked between 1820 and 1867? How were Cuban officials able to avoid international sanction while still keeping official records of what was ostensibly illegal?

Hey, thanks for doing this AMA! I just have one question:

Would you consider Roots, both the new adaption and the original 1976 novel, to be historically accurate in its portrayal of slaves and the institution of slavery at the time?

Hello and thanks for being here!

I have a question regarding Harriet Jacobs' Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl.

What was the contemporary reaction to its depiction of sexual harassment/abuse? Do we know of any reactions to the book from African-Americans who were seemingly not the target audience for the book?

I am curious about the economic impact of the transatlantic slave trade. I was under the impression that the United States owes a real, tangible debt for the contribution of inumerable hours of uncompensated labor and that slavery as an institution created true economic benefits for the Americas. But I have been told that is "revisionist history" that overemphasizes the value and role of slavery in the economy because few people benefited directly from resulting wealth generation. Mainly, I'd like to understand in greater detail the value of slavery to the economy. (Full disclosure, my curiosity is based on a personally held belief that meaningful consideration of reparations is in order, and I wonder if a nuanced comprehension of what the United States "got out of" slavery may be more compelling for some than the mere idea of reparations as an answer for a litany of horrific wrongs committed against a people.)

I have some questions about names, which seem to be a major theme in Roots. I've actually never seen the miniseries, but I'm aware of the "Your name is Toby!" scene. I've read narratives by former enslaved people where choosing a name becomes a symbol of self-determination, and it seems like sort of the opposite is going on here -- having your African name forcibly removed from you and replaced with a foreign one is a symbol of both the enslavement of the individual and the attempted destruction of a culture. What do we know about how enslaved Africans experienced these names? I've heard that enslaved people often continued using African names in the New World (and gave them to their children, which also features in Roots), even when enslavers called them by English names. Do we know whether the use of African names was taken as a sign of defiance? Would they be punished for it, as Kunta Kinte was? I've seen runaway advertisements where enslavers refer to runaways' "country names" in addition to English names, which suggests to me that they accepted the use of African names. Is this accurate?

Finally, how did white enslavers choose the names they called their slaves by? Specifically, what accounts for all the classical names? I've heard that this was enslavers trying to show off their erudition, but it seems to me that it might be sort of mockery or that they were attempting to establish distance between the black and white population -- there don't seem to have been a lot of 17th- or 18th-century Euro-Americans named Cato, although I could be wrong.

How did the buying and gathering of slaves work in Africa? Did the demand for slaves increase a common practice that already existed? Did slavers capture people on their own? Why was Africa the main source for slaves? How did the communities and countries in Africa that sold slaves rationalize the practice during and after slavery was abolished? We're they in danger of being captured themselves if they didn't meet demand?

Thank you very much for your time.

In the original Roots show, we see a mixed band of slave-hunters kidnap Kunta Kinte, white Europeans and black Africans (or at least one of each). Would that be a realistic event in terms of Europeans being involved at that stage of enslavement?

Did any captured Africans of Kuntas time manage to make it back to Africa? Who was the first to be stolen and make it back?

Thank you so much for participating! It's always so nice to see a debate on Slavery, as i feel that so much is already known, but there is so much to learn!

This question is directed to /u/EricaDunbar and /u/JessicaMillward:

• In the brazilian field of slavery studies, the role of women has been constantly under revision. From being conceived solely as the recipient of patriarchal violence on the forties and sixties, these days (city dwelling) slave women are seen as being extraordinarily well-positioned to climb out of their own condition, be it from the help of the community, be it from their own labor. I have learned during my undergrad that american slavery proved to be very inflexible, as manumission was very rare. But since the work of both of you contain the word "Free" or "Emancipation", i seem to be missing something. On more concrete terms, was it possible for something such as the domination of the food markets by Mina women to exist in the United States?

What would guys say to people stating that the Irish were treated worse than black slaves? I understand that Irish were heavily discriminated against, but is it true to compare both?

Reposting a few questions that I've asked and haven't been able to get answers to previously:

1. In the Antebellum Southern United States, were all or almost all slaves owned by individuals, or did corporations, partnerships, trusts, etc, own any significant number?

The iconic picture of slavery in the Antebellum US South is that in which a single proprietor is both owner (holds legal title) and master (controls the day-to-day life) of slaves. This can be complicated slightly when slaves were rented out, which presumably lead to different people being the legal owner and the day-to-day master of the slaves.

Was this the only slave ownership pattern that was common (or even legal, perhaps?) in the antebellum south? Were slaves owned in any significant number by corporations or partnerships? Incidentally, was the answer different for Brazil, Cuba, or the British West Indies?^1

2. How did ideology develop in 16th-19th century West Africa among major slaver powers (e.g., Dahomey) and among surviving victims of the slave trade (e.g., the refugees of Abeokuta)?

Basically, did the experience of the slave trade lead to significant new ideological or religious perspectives, either among major West African perpetrators like Dahomey or among the remaining parts of tribes that were heavily victimized by the slave trade? Did the slavers develop some sort of supremacist perspective justifying their actions? Did the victims develop something akin to abolitionism?

Did Christian missionary activity influence these? Did Christian slavery apologetics, for example, influence Oyo discourse, while Christian abolitionism influenced the Egba? What about Islamic pro/anti-slavery influences?^2

Thanks for doing this.

Are there any other stories about a black person tracing their roots back to Africa? Maybe a more fact based story?

Also how hard would it be to do this?

Is it true that the "reverse underground railroad" (the business of slave traders kidnapping northern blacks for sale) happened more often than its opposite?

I watched the Roots Official Trailer and I analyzed some specific parts of it.

Why are people in tricorn hats, other 18th-century clothing, revolver pistols and some what-seems-to-be 19th century clothing depicted all together?

I'm particularly interested in the tricorn hats and revolvers as I'm very sure they were in different historical periods. I'm guessing Roots takes place after 1793, where I heard when the top hat was invented in England (I spotted a few top hats in the trailer).

I missed it! But it never hurts to try, so my question is about the arts. I noted the style of dance at Kunta's wedding was very similar to the dance his boyhood crush did back with his Mandinka people.

What were the biggest artistic contributions to American culture that came directly from enslaved life?

Also, the broom-jumping argument. How did it become associated with African tradition it is were in fact a European one?

What part of the show is historically inaccurate? If any?