If slavery and lynchings can be soft-pedaled, why not the Holocaust, or the Ukranian famine, or any other historical atrocities?
If you want people to believe that criminal violence is often racially motivated because of a disproportionate targeting of whites, why not admit that lynchings too were often racially motivated?
Bu your reasoning does that mean that the whites that were lynched in Texas after the Civil War for trying to help former slaves start a real life, get reparations or even a little notice. Oh yes the reparations would be paid by the DUMOCRATS.
I don't think there is much danger in Shoah being diminished.
The evils of the Bolsheviks and their sympathizers here in this country has historically been downplayed...or ignored. Most folks would not have any idea what you mean by the Ulrainian Famine.
Mao is somewhat ignored. Pol Pot is not. The movie Killing Fields may have altered that. Franco, Pinochet, and The Serba all get heavy coverage. The Croat Nazis and Bosnian and Albanian Muslims in WWII get a pass for some reason.
I fear selectivity about historical atrocities is a common pastime.
I admit wholeheartedly that many lynchings targeted blacks in particular ...mostly in the South and Midwest. I do not know how many whites or mexicans were lynched throughout our history but it would appear that it happened. The old adage about lynching horse thieves.