We can ascertain historical facts and then debate the meaning of those facts. What counts as “oppression” does indeed change over time and varies by culture. But that doesn’t make the inquiry less valuable.

Should we all have simply acquiesced in Aristotle’s conclusion that some races are just better suited for subjugation? Or was it better to question the assumptions on which that conclusion was based?

And in doing so, in deciding the meaning of social facts, isn’t it better to consider as many perspectives as possible?