NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY

Contrary to the established practice, we emphasize that the term and concept “Sephardic” is ahistorical for the Atlantic world, whose temporal parameters overlap with early modernity. During that era, actors who self-identified as Sephardim—those of the Ottoman Empire—had yet to densely populate local Jewish communities.1 Rather, Jews of Iberian origin in the Atlantic world called themselves—and were generally denoted by others—as “Portuguese Jews” and branded their congregations as “Spanish and Portuguese.” They did so because they were part and parcel of the Iberian diaspora—a pan-Sephardic self-understanding had yet to emerge.2 Although we prefer the term “Portuguese,” most practitioners of Jewish studies continue to use “Sephardic,” as do some of the authors in this volume.

Readers will note that a number of contributors have consciously chosen to use “slave” and “enslaved” interchangeably, with “slave” intentionally retained to communicate both legal status and the brutality of a system that combined unfree labor with rampant sexual exploitation. Some use “Africans” to denote unfree people arriving from Africa. Others prefer “Black” or “black” to refer to enslaved people of colonial or uncertain nativity. Some prefer “white” over “of European origin.” Some use “free people of color,” reflecting the legal language of colonial records, while other prefer “Eurafricans,” to underscore the dual heritage of certain free or unfree people. Some use “Indigenous Americans” instead of “Indians” or “Native Americans.” Echoing our policy on the terms “Portuguese Jews” vs. “Sephardic,” we have decided to allow each author to retain their informed and deeply considered judgments on terminology.