Okay, the original point of my original comment was a dislike of the character stereotype where a character is portrayed as owning slaves in order to point out that he is evil. Frankly, I think we're arguing in circles here, so let me point out a few things:
1) Slavery as an institution is wrong.
2) In a society where it was legal, I do not believe it is fair to portray all slave-owners as inherently evil, especially if the public dialogue for mass emancipation did not exist.
3) Morals change over time. If there is an absolute right, I doubt we've found it yet. To hold societies in the distant past accountable for actions which did not infringe on their morality at the time is, in many ways, an exercise in futility; history simply is, with no judgements necessary. Understanding how they saw things is a valuable exercise, even (perhaps especially) if we disagree with them.
4) It is necessary and right to hold societies accountable for their recent and current actions. This needs to include a public dialogue within these societies, which hopefully will have the effect of bringing their morality in line with our, probably more progressive one; that said, if the people of one particular group do not see themselves as oppressed, and it's not hurting them to remain as they are, why force cultural change on them?
5) Individuals acting within the laws of their own society can usually be forgiven for following laws that don't agree with our morality. For example: the bus driver who called the police to arrest Rosa Parks was doing what he believed to be right, and he was obeying the law. I would not judge him for that action. Instead, I would judge the society that felt those laws were okay. Collective responsibility is more valuable than individual responsibility in such situations. In fact, encouraging individual responsibility in that respect often has the effect of letting the collectively-responsible body off the hook.
Re: Part 2
1) Slavery as an institution is wrong.
2) In a society where it was legal, I do not believe it is fair to portray all slave-owners as inherently evil, especially if the public dialogue for mass emancipation did not exist.
3) Morals change over time. If there is an absolute right, I doubt we've found it yet. To hold societies in the distant past accountable for actions which did not infringe on their morality at the time is, in many ways, an exercise in futility; history simply is, with no judgements necessary. Understanding how they saw things is a valuable exercise, even (perhaps especially) if we disagree with them.
4) It is necessary and right to hold societies accountable for their recent and current actions. This needs to include a public dialogue within these societies, which hopefully will have the effect of bringing their morality in line with our, probably more progressive one; that said, if the people of one particular group do not see themselves as oppressed, and it's not hurting them to remain as they are, why force cultural change on them?
5) Individuals acting within the laws of their own society can usually be forgiven for following laws that don't agree with our morality. For example: the bus driver who called the police to arrest Rosa Parks was doing what he believed to be right, and he was obeying the law. I would not judge him for that action. Instead, I would judge the society that felt those laws were okay. Collective responsibility is more valuable than individual responsibility in such situations. In fact, encouraging individual responsibility in that respect often has the effect of letting the collectively-responsible body off the hook.