Read what I said in context.

Some people argue that "American" slavery was unique because it was based on "race" and chattel slavery.

The inclusion of the word "unique" is what makes the statement not true. Chattel slavery had been practiced for thousands of years.

What makes the American experience of slavery somewhat unique is that America was occupied by Europeans starting in the 1600s, which coincided with the abolitionist movement in Europe.

So, unlike many other parts of the world, slavery faced opposition from the very beginning. You will find that the opposition to slavery was not along racial lines but ideological ones.

On one side, slave owners (mainly whites, but also "free" blacks and Native Americans) defended slavery.

On the other side, abolitionists (again comprised mainly of whites and free blacks opposed slavery).

This paints a very different but more accurate picture of slavery in America.

Whites in America dominated both sides of the ideological divide and whites were supported by "free" blacks on both sides of the ideological divide.

This truth does not justify slavery if you believe in human rights as I do, but it does show the view towards slavery was not based on race but based on whether someone believed in human rights. No doubt when someone owned a slave, whether the owner was black or white, they justified it. One of the more famous legal cases occurred when an abolitionist couple lost in court against a "freed" slave, who sued when the couple helped his slave escape... and the "freed" slave won the case and got compensation. Now to understand slavery in North America, this case should be taught alongside all the examples of slaveowner abuses towards slaves.

This case is important, since it captures the truth, that from the beginning, slaves were victims of "slaveowners" and not whites. The attempt to recast history to ignore this truth is to support the flawed arguments that people cannot integrate and see past race. This flawed belief is a core one behind identity politics and racial separatism. Both things I believe are destructive to society. An insight made crystal clear growing up by people like MLK.

When you start with a false premise, based on a false understanding of history, you end up with a flawed conclusion.

When you start with a false premise in this case that racism is inevitable and so you need to build society around that premise, you end up at one extreme with slavery or at the other extreme with the idea of power sharing through equity determined by skin color.

If you start with the premise, that from its inception, America was divided over race precisely because "racism" is not "natural" but rather the product of a social construct that evolves from tribalism, then you embark on a different journey. You look to dismantling all vestiges of racial identity and promote a shared human identity. You focus as MLK said on promoting societal integration rather than power sharing separatism. The different ideologies produce different desired outcomes.

In separatism, the goal is that outlined by Malcolm X. A division of power and wealth between different identity groups imposed by government. And the occasional use of violence to "renegotiate" the power and wealth sharing agreement. When you think about it, this concept is preposterous on its face and has never endured, since like socialism, it relies on altruism to work and to date no society has made that work.

The system that prevailed in America's early ideological struggle was the concept of individual identity and not group identity. Our laws increasingly are designed to reject group identity and instead focus on individual merit. That being the case, it is silly to presume that the belief in group identity is dead. Just as in early American, the struggle between slaveowners and abolitionists punctuate this battle, today the battle is punctuated by those promoting group identity and those promoting individual identity. I side with the latter group.

I think we have covered the topic. I wish you well. We clearly don't agree on many things, but I defend and respect your right to hold the views you do, even though we don't agree, I hope you do the same. Interesting, the conflict between individuals and group identity may transform over time, but it remains at the heart of how diverse societies try to navigate their diversity.