You still did not reply to the OP's question.If merely taking a few people and holding them against their will consitutes "slavery in the US", then indians were the first people to have slaves. They often destroyed other tribes and took their women. Inidians were the first slaves and slave masters in the US. How despicable. I bet you often talk about how awful they are, because if you didnt, that would mean you are being intentionally biased.Maybe you don't understand linear time.
I've actually posted about Irish slaves sent by Cromwell's brother and how it's the basis for what is now the Jamaican accent in the past on this site. But that was the 17th century, in the Caribbean. I'm giving you the 1530s (16th century), here, before the English came.. And again, if you're talking "the Americas" outside what is now the US, all of them are trumped by Columbus, in the fifteenth cetury, capturing Indians, ordering them to go bring back gold and if they didn't, cutting off their hands. There was nobody here from Europe before that.
You need to aim just a wee bit higher for your sources than random videos on YouTube.
Technically the first slaves to exist on these two continents would certainly have been Indians -- some tribes did, some did not (Indians" doesn't describe any kind of common anthropological culture). In the big picture Native Americans were enslaved by other Native Americans, Africans were enslaved by other Africans; Asians were enslaved by other Asians and Europeans by other Europeans.
But that wasn't the OP's question. He's speaking of the African slaves that were brought here by Europeans. And that means (first) the Spanish and Portuguese Atlantic slave traders, followed by the English, French and Dutch. That -- the intercontinental shipping of slaves -- was a new concept. It had never been done before, and it took a whole new deeper form where instead of indentured servitude like the Irish, where one "worked off" one's bondage and achieved freedom, Africans were enslaved for life, by virtue of their different skin and "sold" as a special inferior class of sub-human. This was the invention of racism.
Do blacks STILL have the right to be angry about slavery?
I addressed that in my first post here (3) before you tried to carry us off to white slavery with a YouTube video.
You might want to go back and re-read your comment because NO you did not. It started off "I don't think" but there was NO direct reply to the question as in yes or no.
I don't need to re-read shit; I was posting my view, which must be a statement of what I think. To state "yes" or "no" directly would be arrogant. Even if I were black, to pretend my view represented everybody in "my people" would be fallacious, presumptuous and similarly arrogant. I just don't swing that way.