I think it's a fair analogy. BTW, this was originally posted on IMDB, so when MovieChat grabbed these threads, the original quotes weren't taken. This is the way it originally was posted. The first part is the quoted part, the part that follows in italics was my response:
Of course, you all realize that MOST slaves were not hunted down in the jungle by armed evil white men, but were purchased by them as they were ALREADY SLAVES. African tribal leaders made fortunes. But, shhhh! We're not supposed to talk about that part.
By that logic the end users of child porn are being unfairly targeted...
My point was simply that if there was no demand, there'd be no supply. So if we absolve the end purchasers of slaves because they aren't the ones that actually captured them, isn't this analogous to absolving those who buy child porn just because they didn't create it? Sure, many of my ancestors sold each other to white slave traders, but if there were no slave traders to purchase them and no ready market for them, they wouldn't have been kidnapped in the first place, or are we misunderstanding each other?
The African Slave industry was well established to serve Arab needs and continued to serve their need after US abolition. Slavery in the Americans started in French and Spanish colonies long before the US existed. Why are there no movies about Arab slavery in the 20th century?
The American left's obsession with slavery is pathological, but then Marxism is a pathological cult!
So your point is it was ok for whites to own slaves because they didnt invent the concept?