The writer observes that Africans sold Africans into slavery in the course of the 18th century transatlantic slave trade.
The observation is no doubt true, but I doubt it has much effect as persuasion. Heavily promoted contemporary narratives like the NYT’s “1619 Project” or Howard Zinn’s “A People’s History of the United States” have a singular purpose to criticize America, to brand the nation as with a hot iron of original sin and thereby undermine the lasting values of its founding culture.
These backward looking malcontents give no consideration to the fact there is more slavery in the world today than ever. To the extent they attend to the issue at all, they cloak it in distracting terminology, such as “human trafficking,” which itself has vague connotations of a critique of capitalism.
I suppose the Pilot is to be respected for publishing an alternative viewpoint, but I wonder whether their motive was really constructive.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
“…a singular purpose to criticize America, to brand the nation as with a hot iron of original sin and thereby undermine the lasting values of its founding culture.”
I disagree.
Understanding our history is more than just grand standing and chest beating. The founding culture is not threatened, but rather a place to look and see what went right, what went wrong and what can we do to improve upon it.
We had legal slavery for 250 years. It was the economic foundation of our nation which allowed us to prosper without English rule. Northern banks, insurance companies, textile mills and manufacturing were profiting hugely from the South’s peculiar institution. The whole concept of an elite aristocracy in the Southern culture evolved from massive plantations that never would have prospered or even been possible without slavery.
And the idea of White Supremacy and some Biblical interpretations were the foundations that kept it alive.
Follow the Emancipation with 100 years of legal apartheid, North and South, enforced by long standing culture, custom and terror. Black Codes effectively revived slavery vis contrast prisoners. Our deeply embedded culture of racist divide is still popping up today, though in subtler ways.
It is not ancient history that needs to be set aside. It is now. There are people alive today who witnessed racial brutality as they came of age. Asking them to forget is as tough as asking Confederate descendants to tear down monuments. The battle for civil rights and equal treatment under the law was very bloody and protracted simply because the white power structure would not yield supremacy.
Our lasting values are strong and looking into history won’t destroy them.
The fact that there may be more slavery today in the world is totally irrelevant to understanding our history. That is “what aboutism”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “We had legal slavery for 250 years. It was the economic foundation of our nation…”
I’d say that’s questionable for at least two reasons:
Considerable controversy exists over the economics of slavery in the U.S. There is some consensus on the notion that slavery was profitable, but significant disagreement on whether it was efficient. This link covers the main aspects of the debate:
https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/09/27/did-slavery-make-economic-sense
Since the plantation system in the South was both a major user of slave labor and an early adopter of mechanical technology (e.g., the cotton gin), we’d be on safer ground to describe the industrial revolution as the economic foundation of our nation.
LikeLike
“Since the plantation system in the South was both a major user of slave labor and an early adopter of mechanical technology (e.g., the cotton gin), we’d be on safer ground to describe the industrial revolution as the economic foundation of our nation.”
I reference the following link concerning the cotton gin and the effect on slavery in the US.
https://www.reference.com/history/did-cotton-gin-16f857885a45d858
Specifically, “However, in order to harvest and process those crops, Southerners needed more workers. The population of enslaved workers increased about five-fold by 1850, and a higher proportion worked in the cotton fields than ever before. “
LikeLike
We were one of top suppliers of cotton for the world. Couldn’t have done it without slavery. And that, along with all the other beneficiaries of the slave system was a big economic boost to a new nation.
Percentage of labor force means little. Plus your link did say that people made a lot of money even though the efficiencies may not have been broad based.
Finally, only through forced labor by Africans from tropical nations and with some immunity to diseases did crops like cotton, tobacco and sugar cane become viable businesses.
My main point was about how racist views have persisted long after emancipation. It takes some kind of effort to preserve white supremacy for no less than 5 generations after slavery. And not just in pockets, but nationwide.
James Eastland, a staunch segregationist from Mississippi was President pro tempore in the Senate in the 1970’s. His father led one of the most brutal lynchings of a black couple on his own land. Viewed by men, women and children.
Eastland was a major national political force a few decades ago. That is how recently racist attitudes prevailed on a major national political level. Knowing the long history of slavery and subsequent apartheid based solely on race (1 drop rule) is critical to a understanding attitudes today. And why 400 years will set a culture in pretty strongly.
Or put another way, if racism is part of the lasting value that critics are addressing, I think that is a good thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person