Black Dynamite examines "white" slavery

Martial arts actor Michael Jai White elected to produce a film in 2010. The genre he selected was comedy and was a parody of 1970s blacksploitation films that made stars of Pam Grier, Richard Roundtree, Jim Brown, Rudy Ray Moore & Fred Williamson.  The film was entitled "Black Dynamite" and it follows a larger than life John Shaft-like detective whose given name is Black Dynamite who seemed to be the embodiment of every "positive" black male macho stereo-type.
         The films release was limited and its box office receipts resulted in it breaking even, but it became a cult classic.  Someone at The Cartoon Network's "Adult Swim" division thought Dynamite should be an animated series and it became an unlikely hit. Dynamite is still a detective, ladies man and all around tough guy, but in the animated series he owns and operates a combination bordello and orphanage which he calls the "whore-phanage."

        The series pokes fun at people and events which were at the peak of their popularity in the 70s and thus far Elvis Presley, Richard Pryor, O.J. Simpson and young Michael Jackson have been fair game. The most recent episode centered around the black community in which Dynamite lives viewing Alex Haley's Roots when it airs on TV, becoming enraged at the white community as a whole and then overthowing and enslaving them including a young Woody Allen whom Dynamite calls a "Child molester lookin' mutha-f#cka."
      Dynamite is initially indifferent towards slavery but after running over runaway slave Woody Allen in his Cadillac and preparing to pummel him for scratching his paint when  he allowed himself to get hit, Dynamite changes his point of view then works to emancipate the white slaves.
     Woody Allen being the agitator tells the black community that he (and others) simply can't go back to Beverly Hills (or Beverly Hills Adjacent) as they're now PART of the black community and he and his fellow former slaves take over Roscoe's Chicken and waffles while clad in dashikis. The episode ends with a speech from black Dynamite where he threatens EVERYONE of every race and all simply go home.

            The episode made me think about the nature of slavery, not just the AMERICAN institution, but slavery in general. Americans didn't INVENT the concept of owning another human being. One would think that for as long as man has existed and figured out that he could take from his fellow man slavery has been alive and well.  Slave and master's roles could be decided by race, religion, gender or geographic location.
            What dawned on me while pondering the allegory which was an adult cartoon airing at 9:30 on a Saturday evening was that as long as there have been slaves (and they still exist) is that there have always been three groups of non slaves in every society which permitted it. 1. Slave owners who often owned them for convenience or essentially as livestock 2. Those indifferent to slaves and slave owners and 3. Those opposed to the institution for one reason or another.

     The question I asked myself was this: Could I have owned slaves in any scenario?  As the descendant of slaves my short answer is "no," but I also grew up reading about how horrible an institution it was and how generations of fear based laws came into existence to insure that former slaves and their descendants would still be treated like a servant class.
    What if I had grown up in a privileged family in which owning another person was as common as having a cup of coffee with breakfast, would I have the same view?  What if I were the descendant of some hard working immigrant who didn't care one way or another about the "peculiar institution" (as one American called it) and simply saw anyone who brought up it's history as either a malcontent or a whiner?

      The fact of the matter is that most Americans regardless of their race, have no idea how they would feel about the "peculiar institution" if they had been born in 1840 and were either slave or master.  Slavery in the Caribbean was MUCH worse than it was here in the United States, as slaves in the Islands were literally worked to death, but that's not to say that southern plantations were resorts where slaves sat by the side of olympic sized pools being waited on hand and foot.
      I'm of the opinion that a few things need to happen. We Americans need to acknowledge the fact slavery will always be the elephant in the room.  We shouldn't attempt to erase it from history books or even water it down, but at the same time we shouldn't spend the next century acting as if it all transpired yesterday.
     The descendants of the enslaved, their masters the indifferent and those who opposed another person being owned need to stand up to the institution where it still exist. Reverend Rob Parsley raises money to go into Africa and purchase the freedom of those still enslaved. Singer Ricky Martin fights tirelessly to end human trafficking around the world.  Back to the slave owner question. Living in the 21st century it's easy to say that one wouldn't do something as abhorrent as owning another person, but 19th century morality could use biblical scripture to justify it.  At the end of the day we'd all like to think we'd easily say "no" but were we to go back in time, we'd learn that most who owned other people considered themselves good "Christians", "Muslims" or whatever faith they belonged to. For the record not having skin the color or mahogany or ebony it would be safe to assume I can see both slave and master in my own family tree so I'd have little rational choices other than to attempt to see the issue from as many  points of view as possible.

     One wishes such a complicated issue could be solved in 30 minutes by a cool ladies man with a bad attitude and a 44 magnum who need only threaten to kick the butfs of those who allowed themselves to be devoid of empathy or simply allowed themselves to be awash in ignorance.  TV always makes it look so easy doesn't it?