the reason this is important is that the dominant crt race narrative largely upholds the idea of white supremacy. the idea of slavery as having to do with race is very recent, and came out of economic factors. for centuries, it was mostly about class. as class-based civilization collapsed in the dark ages, it became mostly about religion. and, as class-based civilization has been re-established, it's again become mostly about class.

i just think a global perspective is imperative to get to a real understanding of what slavery is, and this is in turn imperative in breaking down the hierarchical divisions. the way this is being approached currently isn't doing that, it's just enforcing the euro-centric perspective of white people as global hegemons - a narrative that is easily understood as largely false, if you're able to take that global perspective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BfYGsdv-OQ

i apologize for the source. yikes. but this is the value of youtube as a source, lol. this is easily verifiable.....take it as a starting point...

to rephrase this...

i've had this debate with white people. it goes something like this: if it's true that all races are equal (and that needs a statistical definition to be coherent due to individual variability, it's a blurry thing to try and even define), then why is it that white people have been dominant throughout history? if blacks and whites are equal, why have whites continually enslaved blacks for thousands of years?

and the answer is that the premise is false. slavery has historically usually not been about race. and when it is about race, there's no one skin colour that clearly dominates the other.

but by rooting itself in anti-empirical thinking on the topic. the dominant current leftist narrative on this (however wrong it is) is producing the empirical data that racists need to uphold their views.

i mean, it's a valid empirical question, right? if you want to know if there are superior races, you don't begin with an assumption (whatever the assumption is). rather, you look at the evidence and draw conclusions. that's how smart, modern people approach questions of the sort.

if you take this perspective that white people have been dominant throughout history, an empiricist is going to conclude that white people are, in fact, superior. and, to be blunt, i couldn't argue with the point; if it were a correct understanding of history, i'd have to agree with the deduction. so, it's important to collapse these false narratives and push the point that history does not provide this empirical argument at all.....

flipped around, consider the truth of the following statement: if it is really true that all races are equal, then history should show all races and skin colours and cultures enslaving each other at roughly equal proportions (relative to the social and technological abilities of the relative periods). and if you read it inclusively, history does in fact demonstrate this, where it is possible, throughout the old world.