The American colonies supplied the Brits with cotton. The system was setup to do so by UK. UK was buying the slave picked cotton well after they abolished/outsourced slavery.
The UK even continued slavery in Indian colonies until 1843. They only abolished sugar plantations because it was not profitable anymore.
If the American colonies didn't rebel from the UK, they may have not abolished the cotton plantations themselves because they highly depended on it.
Did I say that? Reply to what I say, not words you create. The system was created long before the US.
Many people were involved in this system, from the warring tribes in Africa selling prisoners, to countries like the UK setting up colonies with slaves for cotton, tobacco, etc.
We were the colony that finally stopped the system. It took a long time and a lot of blood because it was the system, but it was ended.
Explain how you apply "anti-racism" please. If you're excluding people based on their skin color or origins, that is racism, even if they are white or asian.
> Everybody agrees that the US was hugely racist to start out and for centuries thereafter.
Speak for yourself, not everybody. If anything we were the colony to finally collapse the system after many centuries of it being standard across the world.
It's kind of a slap in the face for all those people who fought to end it.
Some people think that affirmative action isn't racist.
But tell me what it is when you think like: "hey we have enough asians, exclude that person, let's find a black to get our quota"
Some people will defend it like a user said below:
"By engaging in deliberate anti-racism efforts to counteract subconscious racism."
But what is "anti-racism"? It's being racist in the opposite direction. You think Y group is being oppressed "subconciously" so you oppress X group as much as you think you need to, to "even" it out.
We should strive for equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.
I think we're done conversing, if you could even call it that.