It's complicated. Not all white people think alike, of course. And the early days you mention come later than the construction of whiteness. That started in Virginia colony, pre-Revolution, with laws classifying indentured servants and slaves. White servants were on contract with an end date. Slaves were slaves for life. Skin color was the main difference. The laws were passed in response to Bacon's Rebellion, which saw white indentured servants and black slaves joining forces in a revolt. That was too big a threat to the master class.
It is true that there were white people against slavery the whole time it existed, and white people opposing all the later forms of racism. But what hasn't changed is that we still have the racial classifications of white, black, etc., and major systemic racism. Which we're all caught up in even if we have no desire to be personally racist.
True. But let me point out something very interesting:
We are talking about the 1700's perhaps even earlier. At a time slavery was common around the world.
Africans owned other africans or whites as slaves.
Asians owned other asians as slaves.
Arabs owned african, asian and white slaves.
Europeans owned everyone as slaves.
Even natives to the american continent, owned slaves.
(for example the Aztecs, owned slaves).
The original african slaves which were brought to the colonies, were already enslaved in Africa: most of them captured soldiers from tribal wars. They were not "hunted in the jungle" like movies like to portrait. In fact the "slave trade" began with African tribe-leaders enslaving other africans, and selling them to europeans in exchange for weaponry.
The truth of slavery is that it is colorblind.
----
----
----
But fun fact:
which was the first culture or ethncity which stopped having slaves?
European christians.
Why is it that when we talk about slavery we remove the historical context from it? And we also blame white people for the horrors of the world, when in truth they were the
only culture which fought slavery?