The conflation of Slavery and what is now termed "Race" is unfortunate, but lucky for some. Since it is well attested* that European traders were supplied with human beings by other people born in Africa, it's remarkable that so many otherwise perceptive people are - I assume sincerely - content to concentrate on the relevant matter of "Race", while at the same time being deaf to those who emphasise the real, fundamental issue, that of Power. While the Aboriginal peoples in other colonized lands are - or were, in some cases - of a different racial group from those wielding power, the instance I have given of oppression, exploitation and not-infrequent slaughter of Scottish people cannot conveniently be attributed to "Racism". There are, naturally, plenty other examples.

A useful question, "cui bono", is generally relevant. Who benefits from people arguing among themselves, or fighting like savages, about one aspect of Power Relationships, without ever looking more broadly at "The Big Picture"? Another useful wee Latin tag is, "divide et impera", which could usefully be contrasted with, "E pluribus unum". Wasn't there an American politician more than a century ago who said, or wrote, something about your Slavery question being a form of "unfinished business" from your War of Independence? Eight score and so years ago a sort of "second round" was fought.
There used to be a slogan here about "Black and White unite and fight". But why should one agenda - important though it be - allow the real issue (Power) to be concealed?
Look --- distraction!


* "Travels in ... Africa" by Mungo Park, c.1800, is a reliable and detailed source to start with, though in the current environment I know he could be termed a "dead white male" and his works dismissed accordingly (and conveniently, for some).