This shit is not hard, people:
-
All forms of (non-consensual) kidnapping and slavery are gross violations of human rights. The kidnapping of Africans (mainly by Africans) and their enslavement in the New World (mainly by whites) were crimes against humanity. Likewise, ethnic cleansing and physical genocide are gross violations of human rights and crimes against humanity.
-
Some portion of some particular US families' inherited wealth is due to the historical exploitation of slaves.
-
It does not therefore follow that a significant fraction of the US or 1st world wealth wouldn't have occurred without slavery. (E.g. see Canada, Australia, New Zealand, which are wealthy now even though slavery was never important in their economies.)
-
The ethnic cleansing and physical genocide of native peoples did support the high level of economic development we see in many countries. E.g. compare/contrast the comparatively high level of economic development in places where most native people were wiped out (US, Canada, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Australia, New Zealand, Siberia) with levels of economic development in neighboring places where native peoples were conquered rather than exterminated (Mexico, Paraguay/Peru, New Guniea/Polynesia, Mongolia.) The ethnic cleansing and physical genocide allowed the seamless replication of the already highly productive European economic model in these land areas.
-
It does not therefore follow that the ethnic cleansing and physical genocide were good things or even historically inevitable. People at those times chose to commit those crimes.
-
It does not therefore follow that the slavery of Africans, the genocide of native peoples, colonialism or imperialism were necessary prerequisites for the Industrial Revolution. (E.g. See Switzerland, Norway, Finland, Ireland, Taiwan, Singapore, which all either never had colonies or were themselves imperial possessions some empire .... contrast vs. Spain, Portugal, Russia which were early colonizers, imperialists or slavers, but which failed to have early Industrial Revolutions and are all still economic laggards.)
If you want to argue about the preceding and haven't read at least 3 or 4 books and 10 or 20 serious scholarly articles on economic history and development, STFU and go do your homework. You're like people who want to argue about vaccines and moon landings who've never studied biology or taken a physics class.
If you have done your homework, I'd love to talk.
