The truth is most likely that they're both bad. I'm not someone who studies science or technology, so I can't comment specifically on those claims. I can comment, though, on the claims at the end of both videos about slavery.

The MTV video is right to point out the enormous role that slavery played in building the modern United States. Slavery was an enormously profitable institution, and slave labour was used for projects that Americans continue to benefit from directly or indirectly today. Indeed, the very success and viability of the colonisation of the Americas depended upon the efforts of unfree labourers including African slaves; slavery certainly has a large role to play in explaining American success and propseriety. What is disingenuous about the MTV video is that it presents a view that slavery was the definitive and essential ingredient in explaining modern-day American economic success, and implies this is something over which there is no debate or disagreement. On the contrary, scholars are very much divided on the question of slavery's economic legacy. Whilst there is agreement that the legacy of slavery does dictate that distribution of economic opportunity and wealth in recent American history, and that slavery had a role to play in building America's wealth, a great many people who study slavery - myself included - are unconvinced by claims that it was the driving force behind either industrialisation or economic success in general. I have written something of a critique of this view here (further down the thread) and here. That's not to say this argument cannot be made - it can, I'm just yet to be convinced by it - merely that MTV is seriously misrepresenting the state of the debate and presenting a disputed interpretation as the only interpretation. Likewise, MTV's video in general depends heavily on a very casual, uncritical "what if" approach to the study of the past - which is not particularly constructive and very dubious in worth.

Well, seeing as we're doing some ridiculous alt history theory crafting where any story is just as valid as any other, considering the fact that America was making use of Irish slaves and oriental slaves as well as black slaves, I posit to you that if black people didn't exist America would simply have expanded its operation of enslaving people from Ireland and from the East Asian countries, and would probably have achieved the same result anyway

Pot, meet the kettle. This is playing up to a ridiculous narrative that has been thoroughly and aggressively discredited by historians; put simply, there were no Irish or Asian slaves in the United States or anywhere else - there were indentured servants, whose experience was qualitatively different enough from slavery that historians emphasise the importance of distinguishing between the two. Furthermore, though the Irish were certainly targeted for exploitation as unfree labourers, many Irish people came (comparatively) freely to the New World and they were not the only group exploited - plenty of English, Welsh and Scottish people also went to the New World. The harsh treatment of the Irish reflects more contemporary political concerns and religious tension rather than a policy of racial discrimination, and in parts of the New World (especially Montserrat) the Irish were in fact able to do very well for themselves despite English political and social prejudice against them. At one point, several islands in the British Caribbean had an Irish Governor. See this thread and this discussion where I go into great detail about this (expanding the second comment hidden for being below the voting threshold to see the full discussion).

Likewise, those people like myself who are critical of the idea that slavery is the backbone of all American prosperity do not suggest that things would have turned out exactly the same in the absence of black slave labour, merely that it is not reasonable to assume America would have somehow failed to thrive and prosper in the international economy, or that the industrial revolution would have been much reduced or delayed. America and likely the world would be substantially different in the absence of slavery. We see in the post-emancipation British Caribbean, when there is a return to the use of indentured labour (this time from India and China) en masse alongside African Caribbean wage labour, that this was sufficient to stave off economic disaster but not to avoid a fundamental transformation of the Caribbean economy. A great many plantations were forced to fold in the years after slavery's abolition in the Caribbean because they could not navigate the transition to 'free' labour successfully, and indenture did not provide the same kind of intensely exploitable workforce slavery could. If it is disingenuous to suggest that in the absence of slavery America could not have still been a prosperous and successful nation, it is also disingenuous to suggest that slavery contributed absolutely nothing to the story of that success. For my part, I am quite certain the real answer lies somewhere between those two extremes - slavery is neither completely definitive nor largely incidental to the story of America's prosperity. Like so many things, it's a complicated problem, and we do not have the evidence we need to explore hypothetical, alternative history scenarios.

The MTV video is right to highlight the importance of Black History Month (which is in October in the UK, incidentally, so a better name might be African American History Month) - African American experiences and perspectives were for a very long time severely neglected by historians and certainly are neglected in popular and public histories. Whilst there has now been decades of academic study working to bring to light those experiences, public discourse and popular history lag behind, and Black History Month is one of the ways in which we can try to play catch-up by giving central focus to black histories in a cultural environment where white-focused history otherwise dominates. If you think of how history is often taught in schools, it is very focused on the experiences of elites: wealthy white men. The experiences of black people, of women, of working class people, of immigrants and so on are glossed over in many popular histories. Black History Month is an attempt to promote recognition of the central role African Americans have played in shaping the destiny and future of the United States and the Americas, and the world at large. That is a thoroughly admirable goal and as the video pokes fun at, there certainly does not need to be a 'White History Month'; those who argue for that are rather missing the point.

But both of these videos have a particular agenda to advance; they are probably both well meaning in the sense that they both feel they are trying to advance the morally just or rational narrative, but they are both flawed for the pursuit of an agenda over interest in what actually arises from the historical record. I suspect the same biases influence their respective treatments of the history of science and technology. Neither of them understand history as well as they would like to believe that they do. They both seem to offer cherry-picked and flawed interpretations of the past and they are both best being disregarded in my opinion, if their respective treatments of slavery are anything to go by.