An act about the casuall killing of slaves.WHEREAS the only law in force for the punishment of refreactory servants (a) resisting their master, mistris or overseer cannot be inflicted upon negroes, nor the obstinacy of many of them by other then violent meanes supprest, Be it enacted and declared by this grand assembly, if any slave resist his master (or othe by his masters order correcting him) and by the extremity of the correction should chance to die, that his death shall not be accompted ffelony, but the master (or that other person appointed by the master to punish him) be acquit from molestation, since it cannot be presumed that prepensed malice (which alone makes murther ffelony) should induce any man to destroy his owne estate.
October 1670 - 22nd Charles II, Act V, 1670,2:280.
And...
XXXIV. And if any slave resist his master, or owner, or other person, by his or her order, correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction, it shall not be accounted felony; but the master, owner, and every such other person so giving correction, shall be free and acquit of all punishment and accusation for the same, as if such accident had never happened: And also, if any negro, mulatto, or Indian, bond or free, shall at any time, lift his or her hand, in oppostion against any christian, not being negro, mulatto, or Indian, he or she so offending, shall, for every such offence, proved by the oath of the party, receive on his or her bare back, thirty lashes, well laid on; cognizable by a justice of the peace for that county wherein such offence shall be committed.Just a couple of examples of Virginia style racism. This from back in the colonial days. In the big picture, yes, slavery is a practice that existed for centuries before it came to America. But in the context of America, it was most certainly a matter of white enslaving black, and I don't understand Sowell's point in diminishing that. Is it his contention that a program about American slavery is detrimental if it doesn't cover the entire history of slavery in civilization?
No study has an obligation to "cover the entire" subject. Any such writing contains, as a matter of course, a statement of scope; that is, how the subset of issues in focus is related to the rest of the body of knowledge. Placing such a statement is mandatory in academic writing (and has been for centuries, as you know) as well as legal and technical papers (including such mundane things like software specification documents). It is fairly universal thus.
The reason for this is simple: mere concentration on a subset of issues (facts, regularities, etc.) creates in a reader a justifiable impression that this is the whole subject. A perfectly logical reader will make erroneous conclusions upon reading the study. Since the one writing the book is presumably more informed, putting the body of worked being offered into a proper perspective is considered to be the author's (fiduciary) duty to the reader.
It is to this omission that Sowell points in his article. He also points out that, in the absence of proper perspective, erroneous conclusions are drawn by many blacks in this country. You too can witness that in the form of the "reparation movement."
In sum, Sowell merely holds "The Roots" to an appropriate, well-established standard.
Not surprisingly, A. Einstein has put it much better than I did:
"Everything should be made as simple as possible. But not simpler."Sowell has eloquently argued that the "The Roots" has portrayed slavery simpler than possible.