Global slavery
First of all, as you think about your ancestors that were "enslaved", does that extend to those ancestors that remained in Africa and were enslaved? Why is that important? Because their children and your distant relatives may still be enslaved.
Understanding that slavery was a global practice and that western values were responsible for ending slavery where they could be imposed on other nations, leads to the realization, that slavery is not something that happened in early America and was abolished, but rather slavery happened globally and is still going on. Did you know that there are more slaves in the world today, then at any other time in history? If you find the practice so "egregious", what are you doing to end it.
More importantly, the same western values that produced the abolitionist movement are under attack around the world. Where do you stand on protecting them? Do you see the abolition of slavery (a western value) as important or are you narrowly focused on the experiences of some of your ancestors?
My daughter fund raises to end slavery every year. You might look into ways you can help.
The myth of America
Moving on to America. The United States as you view it did not exist until after 1865. You think of the "United" states as one country, but that was not true. During our first century, nearly every state in our country felt it had the right to secede at one time or another.
A more accurate view of America prior to the American Civil War would be to view it as the EU. The federal government was granted very limited powers primarily for the purpose of mutual defense and trade.
How the Founding Fathers managed to include "civil rights" (in the Constitution) and human rights into the Declaration of Independence should not be viewed as hypocrisy, but rather a miracle. Both were hotly debated, and it is wrong to think that the signers of those documents were on board with their inclusion... they were not.
Those Founding Fathers responsible for their inclusion into those documents are heroes. They planted the seeds, that would lead to ending slavery in America, but not for almost a century.
More historical context shows the extent of this division.
Vermont abolished slavery in 1777, less than a year after declaring independence. Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1783, the same year the Britain signed the Treaty of Paris ending the revolution. Connecticut followed one year later (though it phased in the freeing of existing slaves). Rhode Island passed legislation abolishing slavery in 1784 (though like Connecticut the freeing of slaves was phased in).
These states refused to join with the southern states if slavery was going to be universally legal.
You have things a bit backward... slavery existed, but the northern states refused to make it legal in their states. And the southern states refused to give the northern states the power to end it in their states.
Slavery was never legalized in our Constitution and as soon as the southern states seceded, the remaining states had the power to make it illegal and did. Now if you want children to learn which states embraced slavery, have at it. It is true some states did embrace slavery, but the US never did. And those Founding Fathers planted a time bomb as it relates to slavery by declaring that all humans were created equal and the southern states bought into it, thinking that they were just words and words could never hurt them.
So, the white "America" you describe never existed. Southern states existed and they embrace one ideology and northern states another.
You are correct "woke" was an African American term, but it was co-opted by progressive liberals not conservatives. Black Marxists saw the plight of African Americans in terms similar to how Marx saw the plight of the poor relative to the rich. Later, progressive liberals expanded "wokeism" as a term that views the world as comprised of identity groups that are either oppressed or oppressors.
Those "black activists" divided into two groups broadly speaking. Malcolm X was the spokesperson for the Black Separatist movement arguing that society was comprised of groups and that blacks must stick together to claim their fair share of the power and wealth within society.
MLK argued that integration was only the real solution. That as long as people were identified by the color their skin, society could never be "fair".
As an aside, I actually have read slave narratives along with books about experiences of blacks and even whites masquerading as blacks (Black Like Me being one of the latter). Strange you would think I did not. Until around 10 years ago, most of my reading in this area was from my days in high school and college...
MLK and Malcolm X were not "historical" figures, they were alive as I was growing up and we studied their writing and those of many others from the time of the Civil War up through the 60s. I grew up in the 60s with the Civil Rights movement and riots going on.
Ten years ago, my children took black history in school and had to read many more recent publications, not available when I went to school. I read a number of them, since my interest in history is marked by my reading an average of 30-50 books a year on it and extends to every part of the world and every period of history. I could recommend some books if you would like on the subject.
Your 60 million number is an impressive example of how a lie repeated often enough is taken as a fact. The total number of slaves transported across the Atlantic is estimated at 10-12 million. Moreover, about 388,000 of that number went to North America. That is bad enough, but it represents a quarter of the number of white Europeans that were taken as slaves to Africa during the same time period. Should I be equally outraged? Or should I ignore skin color, and simply focus on the slavery and the fact that ending slavery is as important today as ever.
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/african-americans-many-rivers-to-cross/history/how-many-slaves-landed-in-the-us/#:~:text=Between%201525%20and%201866%2C%20in%20the%20entire%20history,in%20North%20America%2C%20the%20Caribbean%20and%20South%20America.
And that is my point. If you want to "use" the suffering of slaves to support black separatism, you focus on narrative that makes slavery a racial issue, not a social issue. Every abuse suffered by blacks was experienced by whites where they were slaves. The issue is not skin color, the issue is slavery. My point is simple, slavery is not over and those of us that abhor it, should do what we can to oppose it. Moreover, my belief in MLK's message is witnessed in my life and those of my children and grandchildren.
My wife is Asian, and half my children are mixed Asian. My oldest two children married blacks and five of my seven grandchildren are mixed black. My family has ancestors that were slaves and slaveowners. My guess is yours does also. The need to view integration as the goal is true of people of all races...
But here is a key difference, you should think about. Almost every white person I know believes white separatism is wrong... the exception being the white supremacist groups you read about like the Nazis, KKK, etc. That seems to be less true among African Americans who remain split between the separatist ideology and integration ideology.
So how do we get everyone on board with integration ideology... any ideas?
