O.K.
Chattel slavery was a racist system.
I don’t know what you mean by “‘racist,’” in quotes.
If you’re saying that Africans who traded other Africans to white people were also racist,
a) that doesn’t make any sense because the Africans didn’t have a notion of race, and the Dutch/Spanish/British/Portugese/etc. did;
b) Africans didn’t take prisoners “racially,” for the above reason.
One can’t even make the claim that Africans were equal participants in the transatlantic slave trade. As I told @Timo a week ago,
The Europeans took advantage of those internecine wars in order to profit by them, and consign captive Africans to a fate those who traded them could have never imagined.
Unintentionally, or intentionally, you’re equivocating with your use of the term "the slave trade."
Today, that term commonly refers to the Mid-Atlantic chattel infrastructural system of the 15th-19th centuries that formed the largest forced migration of people in human history.
Africans traded slaves with others. What Africans did was not “the slave trade.”
The way you are using the term is, literally, half a millennium out-of-date.
To a degree.
That is, things are what they are. How one defines them, though, perhaps is part of the process of how one understands them.
For example, racism = white supremacy. Many white people here do not define racism this way, so they understand it a different way; e.g., as a “belief,” or as something the Hutu did to the Tutsi.
I say such a definition is insufficient, and doesn’t explain trenchant phenomena; e.g., that no non-white person has the last word on anything, anywhere, in any area of activity, and that anything they actually do can be overruled by one or more white people.
White arguments usually break up, like frigates, on these rocky shores.
Many do.
I do not, as should be evident by now, above.
Agreed. Though, I do not put racism in quotation marks, and my understanding is that the larger definition is the system of white supremacy.
Well, no, that’s not true.
First, one has to define race. Race is white supremacy.
Then, one has to define “actions,” “attitudes,” and “distinctions.”
In other words, meaning what? Of what kind?
This seems to be an argument about so-called “quotas,” but one that doesn’t seem to note that white supremacy is, itself, a quota system; indeed, one might say white supremacy is the greatest quota system ever conceived.
My position is that, without white supremacy (racism), there’d be no need to pick X percentages of Black people, for anything.
I’m not sure, but, arguably, one could say a counter-quota system is one way to to fight a universal one; i.e., racism (white supremacy).
The latter part of what you’ve written seems reasonable. The former part seems to add nuances that you don’t explicate.
I’d also add that, by this model, if you “telegraph” “positivity,” and someone reads it as “chip on shoulder,” one will get back the same responses as if they “telegraphed” “chip on shoulder.”
Suppose acting out helps you?
If it does—if any person says, “Acting out helped me”—your question is answered and, thus, nullified.
Since you’re saying this, I should consider everything you wrote, which prompted me to write on South Africa, forfeited, correct?
I don’t define “the problem” the way you do. I consider white supremacy the problem.
So, for example, I consider “white neighborhoods” “the problem,” and white women who use trickery to get their white children into Harvard “the problem.”
I consider white people who cluck their tongues when unarmed Black males are killed by cops “the problem,” especially when their responses are well-rehearsed lies about “black-on-black crime.”
I consider any white benefit derived from the Mid-Atlantic slave trade, and its outgrowths, at any point between the years 1400 and 5400, “the problem.”
I consider white Seventh-day Adventists who sat in the GC cafeteria and looked the other way while Black SDAs had to eat in other rooms “the problem.”
I consider white people on Spectrum who claim they’re against racism, but who have no idea how to interact with Black people “the problem.”
I could go on doing this all day; all year; all decade; 'til the Milky Way and Andromeda kiss.
For someone who won’t let the words “Black Lives Matter” pass your lips, you sure know a lot about their internal finances and admin process. 
I’m not sure if that makes you credible, @Sirje, or incredible.
If you’re saying that the money they’re making is mostly going to white people, I would say that’s par for the course in racial situations.
If you’re saying it’s mostly going to Black people, as long as it’s not doing so illegally, I say, Bravo: I hope you all get to buy cottages in Zihuatenejo.
You say
Respectfully, you don’t strike me as credible on this topic.
The rest…
…seems vague.
Further, it has little to do with racism. Racism is bigger than any organization protesting it. I wish it wasn’t.
HA
"
I just have yet to determine to whom. 
