I don’t know if it’s worth replying because you appear to be an ideologue who doesn’t actually want to discuss the subject, you appear to only want to denigrate

I don’t know if it’s worth replying because you appear to be an ideologue who doesn’t actually want to discuss the subject, you appear to only want to denigrate europeans. Eh, I’ll give it a try on the off chance you are actually writing in good faith. Assuming good faith on your part, I believe we have a different understanding of what the standard of discourse should be. While I understand the concern around scope creep, which is valid, I hope you can also see my concern about context. When discussing a complex subject like slavery, I think it’s counter productive to focus on a niche. Let me give you an example. Would it make sense to talk about world war two focusing only on France for example? Could a meaningful discussion on world war two happen if the discussion was limited to France? It feels to me the issue is like this. Continuing the analogy with world war two, I don’t think you need to mention absolutely all countries that participated in world war two in order to have a meaningful discussion on the subject. At the same time, I believe it is impossible to have a meaningful discussion on the subject by talking about literally one country. You appear to be asking us to talk specifically about one country. This to me seems to be actively harmful. I cannot see what good ( unless you count painting european people in an unduly bad light to be good ) can come from ignoring critical context. My purpose is not to stifle discussion by burdening it with unnecessary context, my purpose is to elevate the standard of discourse by including critical context.