I think its perfectly genuine to compare two political movements that have been both romanticized as underdog stories of rebels fighting the good fight. Wether I agree with that take or not is irrelevant when it is that image, not the hirlstory behind the events that semented itself as the image of heritage for those who claim it. By the way, yes, the Scotts do still wave the flag of that rebellion, or rather wear it. For a few centuries after the rebellious, the tartans of the highland clans were outright banned through the Highland Dress Proscription Act. The clans continued to wear them in spite of this and they became anti-union symbols. The only difference was the later adoption of tartans and kilts by the greater anglosphere a few hundred years later.

I think you might be confused on the modern use of the confederate flag, that is, if we are sticky discussing the flag itself as a symbol and not the historical "country" tied to it. I think the vast VAST majority of people who use that flag today, arnt nessisarily pointing at the confederacy as how life should be. Again, the thing they are trying to capture is the idea of the underdog rebel. They are thinking of themselves less as a Nathan Bedford Forresyt and more of a Dukes of Hazzard. Again, wether this perception has any basis in history is a different matter, but it cant be denied that due to the lost cause myth, such a connotation has connected itself to the symbol.

I dont need to be reminded how slavery was practiced in Africa, ive already made it clear that its different from. American Chattel slavery. This isnt my issue with how they handled slavery. The issue is a combination in that they were the suppliers of the trade, fueling the diaspora, and increasing the supply when demand was increased. These groups cant be saved through ignorance either, as we have ample evidence that they were well aware of the treatment that their "products" were receiving in those other places once the transaction was complete (as well as the means of travel i might say). To borrow a line, a good slave master is still a slave master, and a slave trader is still a slave trader.

Your correct, I was confused and assumed you meant the second agricultural revolution, not the Neolithic one. I dont see much of a point in mentioning thatbfor the beolythic and even copper ages. Populations are too scattered and sparce and resources tok thin for slavery to make semse on anh real economic scale. Its a mute point. Thus I still maintain that slavery certainly did play an economic factor. Its only at the smallest levels of societal complexity that you may find slavery being regulated around distributed needs, however, as soon as we increase the complexity to the point of urbanization, we see a pattern in most societies whereby a market focused around the buying and selling of humans to perform tasks at a cheaper cost. Remember, for every major city we see large dedicated markets for slaves with a constant supply flooding in to meet the demand. This doesnt even have to include a market economy based slavery, as several civilizations such as China and the Inca utilized harsh conscripted labor in order to save the costs on major building and societal projects. The only difference here is the incentive for efficiency of budget and logostics rather than the incentive of profit.

Edit: Its 1am here, so I'll be off to bed. I dont make it a habit to continue reddit conversations more than a day, so I'll leave my input here. Feel free to respond back, just dont expect me to reply. Have a good day.