Image 01 Image 03

Sunny Hostin, Race-Obsessed Host of ‘The View,’ Learns She is Descended From Slave Owners

Sunny Hostin, Race-Obsessed Host of ‘The View,’ Learns She is Descended From Slave Owners

“Wow, I’m a little bit in shock. I just always thought of myself as half Puerto Rican. I didn’t think my family was originally from Spain and slaveholders”

If you have ever watched ‘The View,’ you know that Sunny Hostin, one of the co-hosts, has spoken in favor of reparations and other progressive social justice initiatives.

This week it was revealed that she appeared on the PBS Find Your Roots program with Henry Louis Gates Jr. and learned that she is descended from slave owners.

FOX News reports:

‘View’ host Sunny Hostin stunned to learn her ancestor was a slaveholder: ‘That’s disappointing’

“The View” host Sunny Hostin was shocked to discover her family’s hidden history in a new episode of the PBS documentary show “Finding Your Roots.”

The documentary show researches prominent figures’ family histories through historical records and DNA testing. On Tuesday’s episode, show host Henry Louis Gates Jr. revealed one of Hostin’s ancestors on her maternal side was likely involved in the slave trade in colonial Spain.

Her third great-grandfather also “owned at least one human being,” he said.

Hostin, whose mother is Puerto Rican and father is Black, confessed the revelation left her “in shock.”

“Wow, I’m a little bit in shock. I just always thought of myself as half Puerto Rican. I didn’t think my family was originally from Spain and slaveholders,” she said.

Hostin shared that her husband Manny’s family is also from Spain, so they have that in common.

“I think it’s actually pretty interesting that my husband and I have shared roots, so I do appreciate that, and I think it’s great for our children to know this information. I guess it’s a fact of life that this is how some people made their living, on the backs of others,” she continued.

Watch her reaction below:

Hostin later said that she still believes in reparations.

Greg Gutfeld of FOX News and his guests had a ball with this on his show. Watch:

The left wants so badly to use this issue for political gain, but as this turn of events illustrates, history is much more complicated than many people realize.

Featured image via YouTube.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Sometimes it is best to remain quiet and be thought of as a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

She still believes in reparations but she doesn’t believe in paying them herself.

    Dimsdale in reply to healthguyfsu. | February 12, 2024 at 7:05 am

    Nothing in the world stopping her from being a good slaveowner and putting up her share of reparations.

    Maybe the whole idea of blaming the son/daughter for the alleged sins of the father/mother is a dumb idea, right Sonny?

      AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to Dimsdale. | February 12, 2024 at 6:52 pm

      She has a reported net worth greater than $3 million. Yet she wants people who aren’t descendants of slave owners to pay reparations to the descendants of slaves owned by her ancestors.

      Yet she can’t show that anyone in her ancestry was a slave, as far as I know. If she did, then her ancestral slave owners cancel any debt owed.

Karma. Spelled BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

    Remember that Kamala also has slave owners as ancestors. Her own father stated that, but the MSM ignored him as he wasn’t a good enough source.

Well, sunny, I guess you’ll have to take all of your privilege and take all of your assets and give them to all the people harmed by slavery since you have guilt by association from your great-grandfather. That’s not my standard, that’s yours, live with it

And she welched on her bet with Andrew Branca for George Zimmerman, whether the cops told him not to follow Trayvon/Trayvoff….

I don’t know where slavery got a bad name. It was an excellent system all around when it was relevant, namely in a “hit the guy on the head and take his stuff” economy. It was better to enslave your defeated enemy than to kill him, and both sides agreed on that.

It was inefficient in that all your capital was tied up in defense, but it was productive enough to support everybody.

Slavery became inefficient with the free market. A slave contributes more working in his own interest than in working for a master. So property rights and Western enforcement of contracts freed the slaves by making them inefficient.

Slavery lingered on on inertia but no longer backed by defensible arguments (“naturally subservient people”) and died away, except in third world economies today.

Having a slave owner ancestor just means having an ancestor who lived in those times, not a morally bad ancestor.

Look for morality in how he treated his slaves.

    You have outdone yourself. Yeah, it was a excelent system, just as both sides told you.

    gibbie in reply to rhhardin. | February 11, 2024 at 5:07 pm

    The victims of the Middle Passage aren’t around to correct you.


      Milhouse in reply to gibbie. | February 12, 2024 at 1:09 am

      The victims of the middle passage all believed in slavery. None of them had any moral objections to it, or ever imagined it might one day not exist. That peculiar idea only arose in mid-18th-century Northwestern Europe, and within not much more than a century it had taken over most of the world.

        gibbie in reply to Milhouse. | February 12, 2024 at 10:42 am

        Milhouse, this is a rather odd thing to say. Just to clarify, are you claiming that the slaves who died horrible deaths in the Middle Passage ships “believed in slavery”? Perhaps you mean they believed in slavery as long as it wasn’t their own slavery?

          henrybowman in reply to gibbie. | February 12, 2024 at 11:36 am

          They believed it was the normal way of the world, same as medieval female nobility “believed in marriage.” It doesn’t mean that either of them were happy about the situation in they personally ended up.

          Azathoth in reply to gibbie. | February 12, 2024 at 1:52 pm

          They believed it was okay to own other people.

          They also understood that one could become a slave via losing a war, amassing great debt, being sold by one’s parents and various other means.

          The people from the farcical ‘middle passage’ were not abolitionists.. The only slavery they were against was their own..

          People seem to pointedly ignore the fact that there were black slaveowners in the US.

          gibbie in reply to gibbie. | February 12, 2024 at 2:59 pm

          Azathoth, What was “farcical” about the Middle Passage?

          Milhouse in reply to gibbie. | February 13, 2024 at 12:02 am


          Just to clarify, are you claiming that the slaves who died horrible deaths in the Middle Passage ships “believed in slavery”? Perhaps you mean they believed in slavery as long as it wasn’t their own slavery?

          No, they believed in slavery. They saw nothing wrong with people being property. Naturally they regretted the fact that they were now property, but they had no moral objection to it.

          They wished for freedom, but not for the abolition of slavery. On the contrary, their dream was eventually to gain their freedom, become rich, and own slaves of their own.

          Cast your mind back to the Bible, and to the beginning of Exodus, when God sends Moses to Pharaoh to demand that he release the Jews, whom he’s been holding as slaves. At no point in the narrative does God, or Moses, or any Jew, ever rebuke Pharaoh for his predecessors having enslaved the Jews in the first place, or for the fact that he’s been holding them until now. That seems to be accepted as fair enough. God’s only demand is that he now release them. Not because what he was doing was wrong, but because God was now calling them into His own service. Nor did He demand that Pharaoh release all his other slaves; He was perfectly OK with his keeping those. And immediately after giving the Ten Commandments, when He starts teaching Moses all the detailed laws that he was to pass on to the Jews, the very first thing he discusses is provisions for slavery, because of course when the newly-freed Jews settle in their land they will in due course purchase slaves. That’s taken as a given, and as completely unobjectionable.

          gibbie in reply to gibbie. | February 13, 2024 at 10:10 am

          The lack of depth in the comment system is annoying. I am forced to reply to myself instead of to Milhouse.

          “And immediately after giving the Ten Commandments, when He starts teaching Moses all the detailed laws that he was to pass on to the Jews, the very first thing he discusses is provisions for slavery, because of course when the newly-freed Jews settle in their land they will in due course purchase slaves.”

          This is a false interpretation of the Scriptures. There is a vast difference between the slavery discussed in Deuteronomy and the slavery of the Israelites in Egypt and of blacks in the slave trade. The former is better described as indentured servitude, and the latter as chattel slavery. In the former, the indentured servant was never “owned” because he always remained owned by God. In the latter, the slave was the property of his owner, like a horse or a dog.

          I normally respect your opinions highly, but this is foolish nonsense. I wonder where you (and others) are getting it from.

          I agree with AF_Chief_Master_Sgt’s assessment.

        AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to Milhouse. | February 12, 2024 at 6:58 pm

        Wow. To think, a few centuries from now, hopefully someone won’t say “some people had no moral objections to killing Jews, and never imagined it would not exist.”

          Someone might say it, but they’ll be wrong. Obviously some people had no moral objection to killing anyone, but all normal people knew that murder was wrong. Even all normal murderers knew that. The nazis certainly knew it, which is why they went to great lengths to hide what they were doing. And certainly the Jews themselves knew that what was being done to them was wrong.

          None of that is true of slavery.

        Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 18, 2024 at 3:08 am

        Gibbie, there are two kinds of slavery sanctioned by the Bible. If a Jew purchases a fellow Jew, he is to treat him effectively as an indentured servant, and even during his indenture he is to treat him almost as a family member.

        But non-Jewish slaves were accorded no such privilege. Lev 25:46 says they are permanent chattel, to be passed down to ones children with ones estate, with none of the consideration one is to accord a fellow Jew. Indeed, the Talmud explains that “you shall work them forever” is a commandment; it is forbidden to free a non-Jewish slave. That is the Bible’s view.

        Rashi, the most important commentary on the Bible, notes on 25:44, “Should you say, if so [if I cannot control my Jewish slave] then whom can I use?”, the answer is that you can buy slaves from the surrounding nations and use them.

    Dimsdale in reply to rhhardin. | February 12, 2024 at 7:07 am

    Well, that’s another explanation of why Democrats hate the free market.

    Or maybe it is just the word “free.”

JackinSilverSpring | February 11, 2024 at 2:51 pm

Sonny Hostin will have to pay herself reparations.

Cognitive dissonance. She will try even harder to be a victim, but eventually will be turned on as an oppressor. Poor Asunción and her manufactured life.

“Why can’t he just love me for my mind?”

This is not original, but deserves repeating. Reparations would be a good idea, but only if paid by Democrats. It was of course Democrats who owned all the slaves, and overwhelmingly Republicans who fought and died to free them. Some may respond that today’s Democrats are not the same people as the ones who did the enslaving , but I guess that’s my point.

    Milhouse in reply to Lexman. | February 12, 2024 at 1:13 am

    The only way reparations might be a tolerable idea is if it is paid only out of whatever remains of actual slave owners’ estates, and paid directly to those owners’ slaves’ traceable heirs. It would still be an ex post facto law, but at least it would make some moral sense. If the heirs of a former slave track down his owner’s estate and find that there is nothing left of it, then tough luck; there is nothing from which to compensate them.

      Dimsdale in reply to Milhouse. | February 12, 2024 at 7:11 am

      Well, there are no former slaves, and determining the percentage of “slave blood” and “slaveowner blood” in individuals would be a herculean task.

        Milhouse in reply to Dimsdale. | February 12, 2024 at 9:34 am

        There are no former slaves left, but they existed and they have heirs who inherited their legal rights. Those heirs have the right to sue for anything that was owed to them.

        Suppose that in 1865 John White borrowed $1000 from Henry Black and never repaid it. Both are dead now, but White’s estate still has assets. It is surely indisputable that Black’s heirs can sue the estate for the debt. If the estate has more than $1000 in it then they are entitled to the whole amount. If it has only $800 then that’s all they’re entitled to; White’s heirs have no duty to make up the other $200. That’s just common sense.

        So if we were to suppose that in 1865 every former slave owner owed reparations to all of his newly-freed slaves, then it follows that those slaves’ heirs should be able to recover those reparations out of any assets that are still identifiable as belonging to that owner. Those assets were always encumbered with the debt, so the heirs should be able to collect from them.

          AF_Chief_Master_Sgt in reply to Milhouse. | February 12, 2024 at 7:10 pm

          Wow! Milhouse, creating a program to get lawyers paid, but fails to get a single slave descendant much of anything.

          I can imagine the ad.

          “Was yo great-great-great- great granpappy a slave? You may be eligible for a cash award.”

          The reality? One slave-owning descendant 5 generations removed has $1,000 in the bank, and 25 slave descendants have a claim. After the court and the lawyers take their slice, the descendants get $12 each, the defendant gets nothing, and the mega-agricultural company who bought out gggggg-granpappys farm during the dust bowl for 3 cents on the dollar pays nothing.

          Then the counter suits begin, and the lawyers get more.

          Great program you got there.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | February 13, 2024 at 12:12 am

          $1000 in the bank is not an asset that can be traced back to g-g-g-grandpa. Unless it’s the same account that he had at this very bank, that has sat there untouched all this time.

          But if you still have his farm, or his house, or a painting that he owned, then it is clearly liable for his unpaid debts. So if we say that in 1865 he owed his slaves reparations, then their heirs would have inherited that debt, and they should be able to enforce it just like any other debt.

          The problem I see with this is that it would be an ex post facto law. No law in 1865 made him liable, so imposing one retroactively now would be unconstitutional.

Fork over BIGMOUTH!

Levar Burton has a Confederate in his closet. What part of his body needs removal to purge that stain?

Join the club. VP Harris’ own father said her family was descended from slave owners.

    Lexman in reply to jb4. | February 11, 2024 at 7:52 pm

    In photos Harris’s father appears at least 60% white ancestry. In Jamaica that would have meant slave owning.

    Milhouse in reply to jb4. | February 12, 2024 at 1:15 am

    Only in the same sense that almost all descendants of slaves are also descended from their owners. In many places, including America, that was part of slavery.

I believe I am the only American who has never watched “The View” nor do I care what any of these cackling women say or do.

Serious question: If she is so proud of her ancestry and thinks whites are evil, why did she get plastic surgery to obtain the kind of nose only seen in nature among WASPs?

A long time ago I read an article about the ancestry of black people here.
What I remember is that 35% of AA males are the descendants of slave owners. It has bugged me for a long time,, that I can’t find that article..

    Milhouse in reply to amwick. | February 12, 2024 at 1:17 am

    I’d be surprised if it’s that low. As is well known, that was a very common part of slavery. The slaves generally didn’t have a choice in the matter.

I have an aunt who is a Daughter of American Revolution member.

Our DAR ancestor has a DAR Chapter named after him.

Property records say he owned 24 slaves.

I was amazed that he owned slaves.

My great-great grandfather was a Virginia planter who owned slaves before and during the Civil War. I take absolutely no responsibility. As they say, you can choose your friends, but you can’t choose your ancestors.

    Milhouse in reply to txvet2. | February 12, 2024 at 1:21 am

    But do you still have any identifiable assets that belonged to him, and came to you from his estate? It seems to me that if and only if you do, and someone can prove that he is an heir of one of your g-g-gf’s slaves, then he might have a cognizable claim against those specific assets. Maybe. But probably not, since it would be an ex post facto law.

    markm in reply to txvet2. | February 15, 2024 at 10:44 pm

    The Civil War destroyed most of the wealth that the south hadn’t already lost with their backwards economy. But the greater part of the wealth that could be attributed to slavery was already gone – most planters borrowed heavily, and the bankers in NY City and Boston grew rich while the planters grew poor. Good luck on getting the wealth back from the banks!

It was very common for white slave-oweners or their guests to take black female slaves into their beds The women did not always object.

I don’t care if she is a descendant of slave holders.

I find her to be an anti-American idiot all on her own.

When it rains it pours slaveowner ancestors, eh Sunny? Something tells us you’re hardly a ray of of anything but gloom now.. Now write your reparations check, sweetums!

So she must pay reparations to herself?

    Dimsdale in reply to smooth. | February 12, 2024 at 7:16 am

    Is there evidence that the black side of her family were ever slaves?

    She should set up an escrow account just in case.

Subotai Bahadur | February 11, 2024 at 8:13 pm

This is America in the 2020’s. No Leftist can be held to account for anything.

Subotai Bahadur

“Wow, I’m a little bit in shock. I just always thought of myself as half Puerto Rican. I didn’t think my family was originally from Spain and slaveholders,” she said.

Half Puerto Rican. From an island colonized by Spain where Spanish is the primary language for many (most) inhabitants. And didn’t realize that some of her ancestors might be from Spain? Could she demonstrate and greater degree of ignorance?

I have several black family branches on my tree descended from slaveholders. Some of whom were white in the 1940 and 1950 censuses, not black or mulatto. I’m willing to bet that with the advent of affirmative action they’re all black again… Could be wrong. When I say distant- any living relatives in those branches would be 6th cousins or higher. Needless to say, we’ve never met, unless accidently and didn’t and don’t know it…

This really shouldn’t come as such a shock. The sexual exploitation of slaves was widespread, and one-drop rules made it so that the resulting children were identified as black. So those children married in the black community, and so did their descendants, until it’s probable *most* descendants of slaves will end up also being descendants of slaves owners.

    The Duke d’Escargot in reply to Flatworm. | February 13, 2024 at 1:04 pm

    “Where there is slavery, there is pederasty”

    — John Adams

      The Duke d’Escargot in reply to The Duke d’Escargot. | February 13, 2024 at 1:11 pm

      Of course, the “right” to a maiden’s virginity belonged to the Land Owner in most of Europe during this time.

      That’s what Mozart’s THE MARRIAGE OF FIGARO was about.

      Unrelated to race. Or slavery, per se.

      More about rank.

      Maybe it’s all the same thing in the end — men devising ways to legitimize sexual access to females. Particularly young females.

      What a world

The Spaniards are getting bad rap here only because they kept records. Her black ancestors, who almost certainly had slaves themselves and may have participated in trading slaves with the Spaniards, unreasonably get a pass.

Got more news for her. It’s very likely, almost inevitable, that several of her African ancestors, as well as several of her Amerindian ancestors, also owned slaves. Everyone is probably descended from slave owners, at some point.


You miss the point entirely, buttercup — we expect you to PAY them, not GET them.

Said it on Twitter:

If she doesn’t have to pay reparations for what her ancestors did, then I don’t have to pay reparations for someone else’s ancestors did.

No records of my ancestors owning slaves, to further back some of “us” might have been slaves ourselves.

I’ll tell her where to send the check.

Maybe her great great great grandfather owned her husbands great great great grandparent?