Of course not. I'm talking about "wielding" history intelligently, with proper context, to make a point that has a clarifying connection to the present.

The person I was responding to at the start of this particular thread said simply, and I quote; "I'm sure the fact that modern day police evolved from slave patrols has nothing to do with it." That's the phrase fam.

They didn't even specify what "it" was. I even highlighted the question I was asking this person to you after your defence:

“Do you think that any institution that has ever had anything to do with slavery is forever synonymous?”

And I'm genuinely sorry if I missed it (you have been spamming the replies here pretty hard), but I haven't seen you explain what that mysterious "it" is either.

So as you chose to jump in and defend this person’s point of view, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask you to actually defend it. Or at least let me know what the statute of limitations is on talking about slave catchers in reference to police brutality. Apparently 200 years isn’t enough. So 300? 400? Stop me when I’m getting warm.

I’m not straw-manning you dude. I know it’s exciting when you learn a new word, but you don’t have to use it in every reply. I’m just paying attention to what’s actually being said.