I'm watching a debate on political correctness that I believe aired earlier this week. One of the participants, Stephen Fry (who I am a fan of, btw) just trotted out one of the more tired tropes about slavery that I've ever come across.
At about the 49 minute mark, he mentioned that Brits were enslaved by the Roman Empire and that Jews were enslaved by Egyptians. Now both of these statements are true, actual facts -no one is disputing that. But there is a damaging logical fallacy at play when attempting to compare those instances with American chattel slavery.
The British no longer (and haven't for many, MANY centuries) had to exist under the governance of the Roman Empire. The Jews do not have to exist under Egyptian governance (except for a small fraction of Jews who I'm sure do exist in Egypt, but an Egypt so many orders of magnitude removed from the Ancient Egypt that enslaved them as to be the same in name only). This is fundamentally and profoundly different than African-American's existence under the governance of an America that is without question, the same institution that not only benefited from said slavery, but whose dominance and for that matter, very existence today could not have been, but for the existence of Transatlantic Slavery.
Now to be clear, I know (or at least believe) Mr. Fry had no ill intentions with regards of the use of the comparison, but a weapon, even accidentally triggered, does damage irrespective of intent.

As a side note, very much enjoying this debate.