Why doesn't cultural relativism apply to slavery in the Americas?

Cultural relativism does not mean nothing is good or bad, it just means looking at events in their own context.

>>3150740
That doesn't answer my question

It does apply, what are you on about?

>>3150875

It answers your implied question. I guess the explicit answer to your question is that it does apply.

>>3150740
>Cultural relativism does not mean nothing is good or bad, it just means looking at events in their own context.
>current events are history

>>3150970

What? What current events? This is a thread about slavery...?

>>3150990
cultural relativism is and was used to justify Islamic rapegangs, female circumcision and many things the left would object to where it not done by blacks or muslims

it is an especially tired cliche when it coems to muslims, this is what cultural relativism is used for

>>3151054
It isn't though but nice try attempting to set up a strawman

>>3151054

1) I'm pretty sure "the left" is not pro-ISIS or whatever the fuck you're on about.
2) What does this have to do with slavery in the Americas?

>>3151085
>>3151096
it is how the terms is used, specifically in the context of current events. It's entirely appropriate to draw in current events when discusssing cultural relativism as this is central to it's usage. The present is used to justify judging the past and vice versa. Cultural relativism is slectively used as a lense selectively so that judgement can be used according to political motives.

This is essentially what the OP is pointing to why do white nations have sins while other people do not?

>>3151181
> why do white nations have sins while other people do not?

But nobody is saying that?

It does though.

Cultural relativism is a way of doing history, sociology, and anthropology in a way that lends to a more objective, accurate representation of the subjects in question. If you want to work your head into 18th and 19th century society, you need to set aside your own biases and moral judgments and ask yourself, "what did these people think, and why?" History is not, and in my opinion should not be, a catalogue of sins and moral victories and defeats. There is a place for that, but that would be polemics. I wouldn't submit such things to a journal of academic history.