This isn't entirely accurate. The extremely small percentage of whites who owned slaves were usually wealthy, and with wealth usually comes education and sophistication. Ebonics as we know it is a modern evolution and largely a result of inner-city poverty, illiteracy, and a radical evolution of their own vernacular. Blacks I've seen from the civil rights days were well-spoken when compared to the heavy ebonics-slingers of today. There may be a hint of influence from what you say, but ebonics is by no means a result of it. Poor people from city slums have had their own vernaculars throughout all of history.

Regardless, it's still a result of poverty and lack of education brought on by centuries of being stepped on by whites. I would think they'd want to break free of such a vernacular rather than embrace it.

I agree that they should break free of their vernacular, but it has become a cultural identity that they have grown to be proud of. As for "centuries of being stepped on by whites," this is surely a factor but all parties are to blame here. Consider how much black cultures have held themselves back by infighting. Even African slaves were mostly war prisoners of other African tribes.

That doesn't excuse the way whites have treated non-whites in this country since day one.

Nor does it excuse the way Romans treated Britons, or the way Japanese treated the Chinese, or the way Egyptians treated the Hebrews, or the way the Ottomans treated the Greeks, or the way the Huns treated the Goths, or the way seniors treat freshman.