Apologizing for Slavery. Does it matter?

[Hippy_Hollow]

Quote from dotchan

Oh, and by the way, I’m still waiting for an apology on the treatment of the innumerable Chinese that built the railroads of the West.

I’m in your corner, but I wouldn’t expect anything from the corporations and government entities anytime soon. You see how this is going… but by all means, I hope and pray that it does happen. And any action that puts pressure on the responsible parties to do the right thing, I’m down with.

Yeah, that’s what I was driving at. If a company feels they should make an apology, then they should, hollow or not, but as far as being forced to do so, that’s where I draw the line.

But see, this is the sad truth about this country. People and organizations rarely apologize without the threat of bad P.R., legal or civil sanctions, etc. - in essence, what brickbacon said previously. In many criminal trials defendants (who are guilty of course) are invited to apologize for their actions, and many do. Sometimes the harmed parties appreciate it, sometimes they don’t. But if you’re in shackles going to the big house because you hurt somebody, it might serve your own interests to say the words “I’m sorry.” Absent of a judicial process, how many vandals, rapists, and arsonists make it a point to apologize to their victims?

You can argue that it was good business sense for Wachovia to apologize and that it wasn’t purely their own soul-searching that led to this outcome. So what? A lot of good can come from such “pressure.” And I’ve yet to see any group force an apology from any corporation or government entity…

There is a statute of limitations on everything but murder, but slavery was legal then, so, no crime was committed. Hence, the time to address reparations was within a reasonable amount of time after the law changed, not several hundred years later.

buttonjockey, I deduct from your posts that you work in law enforcement. Do you believe in justice? Because this statement completely contradicts what I believe justice to be. My new strategy is to commit evil against people, and as long as sufficient time passes, I get away with it. Does that sound anywhere close to justice?

Again, let’s revisit Reconstruction. Many freed Blacks attempted to obtain funding for schools, land, and so forth immediately after the end of the Civil War. Depending on where they lived they may have received some portion, but Andrew Johnson and his cronies put an end to that fairly quickly. White supremacy was alive and well in the 1860s and despite what you might think, it’s still alive today. Sure, it’s moved out of it’s fancy digs, but it’s still residing among us… in some of us…

Liberal… I’m not even going to bother…

Sure, cops should be fair and objective, and many of us are, but the fact is that we deal with the worst of the worst of society in general, and the black culture, because of years of educational and econmic oppression, there are more blacks in jail than any other racial group. C’mon, this is common sense.

It seems that you understand that there isn’t an inbred criminality among Black people, but rather it’s due to economic and educational disparity. So if something existed that could address those two issues, would you think it was a good idea - or at least worth thinking about?

And it’s not as if these logical leaps you describe are limited to African Americans in certain communities. I attend and teach at a very prestigious university in the Boston area - yeah, that one - and I can give examples of three close friends, all men of color (two African American, one Puerto Rican) - who were arrested and harrassed by police officers on absolutely no legal basis. None of them were committing, had committed a crime (actually, one had an expired inspection sticker for a car he owned - but is an arrest necessary for a finable offense). I don’t want to get into personal anecdotes too much but I raise these points to demonstrate that generalizations and stereotypes about people of color by police affect people at all levels in society and in all jurisdiction. Said a friend recently: “I never thought I’d have as much negative interactions with police officers as a graduate student, but there you go.”

Methinks some of the educational funding needs to be directed at people who insist that stereotyping is a logical and ethical way to enforce the law. (I’m not aiming this at you, buttonjockey, but rather those in law enforcement who don’t have the understanding you do.)

I am confused though by something you said. What laws or legal, systemic oppression sanctioned by the U.S. government did Italians and Germans suffer under? I certainly know that Italian immigrants were on the receiving end of harsh racism and horrendous working conditions when they arrived in the U.S. at the turn of the century, but I’m unaware of governmental sanctioning of such action. Considering the largest European American group in this nation came from Germany, I am at a loss for this statement as well. I’m not trying to get involved in the Oppression Olympics here, but for Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Native Americans, Latinos, and African Americans, there were legal impediments to citizenship, education, and human rights sanctioned by state and local governments. I’m not aware of similar treatment suffered by the groups you mentioned.

Taking cash directly from one, to give to the other will in no way, shape, fashion or form create racial harmony. IMO, it will create the 1950’s style hatred all over again, without any of the lessons to be learned. You want to create a divide between the people, mess with their money.

Just a question, how is what you’re describing different from Social Security taxes we all pay? That money is not my Social Security savings. It goes to support numerous people in this nation, some of whom I may find personally despicable, who have reached retirement age and/or are disabled. I don’t harbor any real antagonism to these folks…

[Contrapuntal]

@Hippy Hollow

Contrapunctual… the words “emotional” and “unstable” are yours, not mine. If you’ll review the thread I posted exact quotes from posters that spoke to the meaninglessness of the apology. Pick a page, any page for examples of posters asserting that they won’t be forced into an apology, etc. Seriously, review the thread.

I might agree with your term “emotional” in some regard, though.

Fine. Put your own words to it. Show me where anyone has moaned or gnashed teeth.

@Hippy Hollow

Sure they’re not the same thing but they are very closely related.

He did not assert that they are closely related. He asserted that they are the same thing. It is an entirely different argument, and one that he has failed to advance.

@brickbacon

If you read my next post, you will see that I already explained this. Read more carefully next time.

It is responses like this, with it’s superior tone and little else, that make me think I am dealing with a dishonest debater. Here is your entire post
"*They admitted that companies they acquired owed slaves. I feel the act of acquiring these companies makes them responsible for their actions as well. You may disagree with the last part, but the first part is why they issued the apology. I don’t know what you want a cite for. * "
Humor me. Pretend I am the tyro you you assume me to be. Take baby steps, if you feel the concept is beyond me. Show me how that post , aside from asserting your feelings, provides any evidence that Wachovia owned slaves.

To recap: Your premise–Wachovia owned slaves.
Your support ?

[Contrapuntal]

Addendum.

@Hippy Hollow

Sure they’re not the same thing but they are very closely related. If I drown in your pool, or even crash through your skylight in an attempted robbery, there are civil precedents that say I can find you responsible. If you have a pit bull that gnaws my face off, guess what? You, the owner, are responsible. Need I go on? In what context can one own something, but not be responsible for it?

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. In your example, ownership is established, and responsibility is inferred from it. brickbacon is attempting to establish responsibility, and infer ownership from that. Not the same thing at all. It is the most basic of syllogisms. WHile all horses may be mammals, it does not follow that all mammals are horses.

[Askia]

Contrapuntal has a point. That said, we could just cut to the chase and acknowledge that Wachovia as an entity did not own slaves but has assumed the repsonsibilty of its corporate progenitors who did. This claim should have been conceded on page two.

[Liberal]

But it hasn’t assumed any responsibility. It has apologized, which, as I said early on, is a cheap and easy PR trick. Nothing more. But if you value such things, then I apologize on behalf of the Blessed Mother Teresa, Madelyn Murray O’Hare, the Black Panthers, and the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

[you_with_the_face]

@buttonjockey308

Reparations are a damned bad idea. They were a bad idea for the Japanese, they are a bad idea for the Indians, and they are a bad idea for African Americans. All of these groups were a part of significant portions of American history. They all suffered so that lessons could be learned.

monstro was right to tear you a new one for this. Just in case you don’t get why she did, I bolded the part that qualifies your post as the Worst. Post. Ever.

One of my most favorite defenses against reparations is “If the government gives reparations for slavery, it will have to give reparations for everything its done wrong!” Of course, no one backs this up with anything factual. Its sort of flung into the ether and allowed to stay there, unquestioned, as if its a mathematical given. Never mind the fact that it has no merit whatsoever.

It’s akin to saying that since the lady won the million dollar settlement over the McDonald’s coffee, everyone who ever got burned from food from a restaurant is entitled to money. The flaw in such an argument jumps out right at me: Everyone who ever got burned from food from a restaurant who can show that it happened through the company’s negligence or disregard for customer safety may be entitled to money, but the part in the italics is key. This is a fundamental requirement for all civil court cases. Just because the coffee lady won her case does not automatically mean Bubba who burned his tongue on Papa John’s pizza can sue and win money. He may sue, but his ability to procure damages has nothing to do with the coffee case.

So what if people sue the government or anyone else for reparations? So what, so what, so what?! If slavery is soooooo long ago and its effects so tenuous to the present day, then surely their case will be shot down in court. But if they can manage to successfully convince the court that they indeed suffered because of the actions of another entity, then what is the legal justification for withholding damages from them and why is it such a horrible, terrible thing that they receive it? This is the thing that I don’t quite get. I don’t get why anyone would get personally offended by someone who–after presenting their case in a court of law–was awarded money fair and square as determined by our judicial system.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@you with the face

[. But if they can manage to successfully convince the court …

which is often done by means of a concept known as “legal precedence,” which makes some of us leery about where apologies and reparations may lead.

All this passion about how certain some of you are about reparations being owed, plain and simple, casts a little doubt, for me, on the sincerity of previous statements about agreeing that, as a practical matter, African-Americans will never get close to receiving monetary reparations. Why am I wondering, do you suppose, that if some headway is accomplished with apologies and rectification, that at that point, you will start thinking, “Hey, now’s a good time to push ahead --maybe we CAN get those reparations after all?”

Oh, I know: it’s because I’m paranoid and mistrustful. Gotta be it.

[Askia]

Liberal, respectfully, the only cheap and easy PR in the last few posts is your half-assed apology. I’ll cut the bank more slack, thanks.

[Contrapuntal]

@Askia

Liberal, respectfully, the only cheap and easy PR in the last few posts is your half-assed apology. I’ll cut the bank more slack, thanks.

(bolding mine)

Respectfully, why? For that seems to me to be the crux of the issue. As I tried to point out before we got sidetracked on the definition of “coerce”, there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Wachovia would have conducted this research had not the ordinance compelled them to do so or risk losing a city contract, and 150 years of history to suggest otherwise. None of us can know for sure why they made the statement they did. Absent that knowledge, it seems to me that the burden of proof is on the claimant who asserts that a corporation would act contrary to, or without giving consideation to, its best interests. If the apology did not somehow protect the bottom line it would not have been given. Please explain to me why you choose to believe that Wachovia has suddenly developed a social conscience with regards to slavery after a century and a half of lacking one, and why the timing of such development coincides precisely with the Chicago ordinance.

[Askia]

pseudotriton ruber ruber. The courts have, “Legal precedence.” Human interaction has something called, “Past behavior,” that is an similar indicator. African-American leadership has historically had a history of settling first, not making demands first. Booker T. Washington endorsed segregation in exchange for a promise of eventual assimulation: it took WEB DuBois another twenty years to reverse that deal. The Montgomery bus boycott’s original aim was for a more humane version of segregated bussing and a few black drivers on certain routes. It wasn’t until the success of the first day’s boycott they decided to challenge segregation. Brown vs. Tokea’s original aim was to actually make the feds pay for actual separate and equal facilities, since black schools and equiptment were always hand-me-down. It is rare we get up the anger to push for things like reparations; it’s only when we’re denied something as basic as an apology for slavery we get pissed enough on a grassrots level to want money. It’s sad you’d doubt my sincerity and interpretation of African-American history to cater to your paranoia, but building bridges to heal wounds has got to start with some trust on America’s power structure. If you’re not willing to do that, then when the reparations lawsuits do start to come, you should realize you’ve essentially enabled your own self-fulfilling prophecy.

QuickSilver said it best: "Quite the opposite. An apology is good PR and when worded, timed and spun right will help avoid reparations suits. To that extent it sounds hollow to my ears but then again, I’m not the targeted audience with a lot of cultural and historic baggage wrapped up in the issue. From the mindset of a victim or survivor, we want to hear appologies from our transgressors. Even if it’s spoken by a subsequent (innocent?) generation." – Bolding mine.

[you_with_the_face]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

which is often done by means of a concept known as “legal precedence,” which makes some of us leery about where apologies and reparations may lead.

“Legal precedence” is all well and good, but to win damages, the burden still rests on the plaintiff in proving their case based on the minimum required of a civil lawsuit. That’s why all this huffing and puffing about apologies is uncompelling to me. An apology does nothing in court without true evidence of culpability.

All this passion about how certain some of you are about reparations being owed, plain and simple, casts a little doubt, for me, on the sincerity of previous statements about agreeing that, as a practical matter, African-Americans will never get close to receiving monetary reparations.

If African-Americans get reparations why should that be so heinous and troubling to you? You might think they don’t deserve it, but if the court disagrees with you based on the evidence submitted, then there is no reason for you to get your feelings hurt. Just like I don’t give a rat’s ass over the coffee lady winning all that money. BIG DEAL! The world will still turn. This is what I mean when I said white people need to get over their attitude of “me, me, me”.

The reason why African-Americans probably won’t win individual payouts over slavery is because of logistal obstacles. It shouldn’t be enough to show that you are black; in order to receive anything, you would probably have to submit proof that you are a descendant of an American slave. This is one of the reasons why I contend that this is not a black versus white issue. Technically, if a white person could trace their ancestry to an American slave they would be eligible for reparations, if the fight were framed in the most accurate way.

Why am I wondering, do you suppose, that if some headway is accomplished with apologies and rectification, that at that point, you will start thinking, “Hey, now’s a good time to push ahead --maybe we CAN get those reparations after all?”

Again, I say for the upteenth time, why would apologies lead to any more demands for reparations than what we have presently? Is there is any question that the government has benefitted from slavery? You yourself admitted that there was not. So if the government formally said it was sorry, what would that change in terms of evidence of its cupability? It would change nothing. Your fears about apologies opening floodgates of litiginous appear unfounded to me.

[Askia]

“Please explain to me why you choose to believe that Wachovia has suddenly developed a social conscience with regards to slavery after a century and a half of lacking one, and why the timing of such development coincides precisely with the Chicago ordinance.”

Because a sincere apology given after an egregious error in policy or judgment yet acting out of benighted self-interest is not diametrically opposed the business function of protecting the bottom line.

It’s better for business to try and mollify your customers with an apology that MIGHT forestall a lawsuit than to seem unrepentant or unapologetic about your business’ unsavory past.

[Contrapuntal]

@Askia

Because a sincere apology given after an egregious error in policy or judgment yet acting out of benighted self-interest is not diametrically opposed the business function of protecting the bottom line.

It’s better for business to try and mollify your customers with an apology that MIGHT forestall a lawsuit than to seem unrepentant or unapologetic about your business’ unsavory past.

But why now? The “egregious error” happened 150 years ago. And I am by no means suggesting that such behavior is “diametrically opposed (to) the business function of protecting the bottom line”, only that it is suspiciously in concert with the ordinance. It really does seem to me that you are choosing to believe this because you want it to be true, and for little other reason. I sincerely mean no disrespect. To assume that a US corporation, or any for that matter, would act out of benevolence or a sense of shame is mind-boggling to me. I am sure it has happened in the past, and may be happening in this case, but it would be a very rare duck indeed. Like I said, the default position is that a corporation has absolutely no allegiance to anyone but it’s stockholders.

[monstro]

@pseudotriton ruber ruber

All this passion about how certain some of you are about reparations being owed, plain and simple, casts a little doubt, for me, on the sincerity of previous statements about agreeing that, as a practical matter, African-Americans will never get close to receiving monetary reparations. Why am I wondering, do you suppose, that if some headway is accomplished with apologies and rectification, that at that point, you will start thinking, “Hey, now’s a good time to push ahead --maybe we CAN get those reparations after all?”

If someone successfully won reparations by demonstrating how they have been personally harmed, then I would cheer for them and wish them the best. But no, I personally would not go out and sue for myself.

Is this a bad thing?

[brickbacon]

@Contrapuntal

It is responses like this, with it’s superior tone and little else, that make me think I am dealing with a dishonest debater. Here is your entire post

"*They admitted that companies they acquired owed slaves. I feel the act of acquiring these companies makes them responsible for their actions as well. You may disagree with the last part, but the first part is why they issued the apology. I don’t know what you want a cite for. * "
Humor me. Pretend I am the tyro you you assume me to be. Take baby steps, if you feel the concept is beyond me. Show me how that post , aside from asserting your feelings, provides any evidence that Wachovia owned slaves.

To recap: Your premise–Wachovia owned slaves.
Your support ?

Sorry, I should have asked you to read my posts (plural).

1. Wachovia aquires company that owns slaves.
2. Wachovia is considered a person
3. The act of aquiring a another company (person) is like two people becoming one. The pasts and futures of these two entities become one.
4. Just as Wachovia owns all of the assets and liabilities (usually) of the companies they aquire, they own their history.
5. Wachovia owned slaves.

You may disagree. I really don’t care, but don’t say I have not explained my opinion on this or intimate that I’m being dishonest.

[monstro]

Contrapuntal, I personally believe that Wachovia would NOT have issued an apology if it hadn’t been for the full disclosure ordinance.

But the company’s silence on the matter would have been rather deafening, don’t you think?

Who knows? Maybe the CEO truly didn’t know about Wachovia’s indirect ties to slavery before all this. Maybe it took the disclosure ordinance to reveal this information to him, and the apology he issued was inspired by this revelation. We have no reason to believe one way or the other.

As a poster said already on this thread (can’t remember who, sorry), the CEO was in a catch-22. Don’t apologize and come across as a jackass. Apologize and look like an obsequious wimp. The company can’t win.

[Askia]

Wachovia absorbed two smaller entities with ties to slavery. Wachovia researched this and revealed this findings. Wachovia denounced this.

I know it’s fashionable in these days of misbehaving CEOs, Enrons and insider trading to presume many companies have no ethical qualms at all in the pursuit of profit, but mind-boggling though it may be to realize this, there are many companies out there that do have a social conscience, even some corporations. Wachovia might be one of them. I’ll even go so far as to suggest that some companies to find it useful to appear to act out of shame irrespective of whether that’s an accurate characterization of that companies actions. The timimg fit because sometimes it DOES. It complied with the ordinance and apologized at the same time. Nothing sinister about that to me.

Rare duck is exactly my view. Sometimes when it walks like a talk and talks like a duck it isn’t just the usual horseshit.

[Hippy_Hollow]

contrapunctual… if you didn’t read the thread up until this point, and you think the conversation has been simply about a difference of opinion, you ain’t reading very closely. We’ve been through people excusing themselves because they are not descended from slaveowners, people belittling the impact of slavery and Jim Crow on present day African Americans. If your perception is that this has been a discussion where people haven’t bitched and moaned about the dangers of a fairly innocuous apology from a corporation - hardly front page news - fine, that’s your perception. I don’t have to submit evidence for my perception that it is otherwise, for me, to you.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. In your example, ownership is established, and responsibility is inferred from it. brickbacon is attempting to establish responsibility, and infer ownership from that. Not the same thing at all. It is the most basic of syllogisms. WHile all horses may be mammals, it does not follow that all mammals are horses.

You’re also operating under the assumption that I share a brain with other posters. When I asserted that ownership and responsibility go hand in hand, that’s my take. So - Wachovia, on their own accord, quite plainly connect to their predecessor institutions. That means assets and liabilities. It wasn’t like they moved into vacated offices occupied by these companies. They took on wealth and property that the other companies earned. Nothing complicated there.

The most important piece here is that Wachovia connected the dots. Not me, or any SDMB members, or any faceless entity of Angry Black People. They could have said, “Companies that existed before Wachovia and have absolutely nothing to do with the current corporations owned slaves.” They didn’t. So unless you know a little more about how Wachovia came into being, I’ll take their word in how they see a connection between those predecessor institutions and the present day corporation.

I see the phenomenon of taking credit for noble actions in the past that have nothing to do with individuals in the present day all the time. Corporations remind us that they invented certain products, or they were the first to do a certain thing… and no one today in the company has any real connection to the individuals who created said process or invention. We celebrate declaring independence from Great Britain every July 4, but no one living had any involvement in that… so why do we celebrate it still?

To assume that a US corporation, or any for that matter, would act out of benevolence or a sense of shame is mind-boggling to me. I am sure it has happened in the past, and may be happening in this case, but it would be a very rare duck indeed. Like I said, the default position is that a corporation has absolutely no allegiance to anyone but it’s stockholders.

Do you see your assumption here? What if the stockholders, or the board of directors, are responsible for encouraging Wachovia’s actions? Is it possible that the stockholders and board members today are descendants of slaves or abolitionists, or are people of all racial backgrounds who just feel slavery was wrong and pushed for this?

Listen, I have a lot of friends who love to send me updates on all the companies I should boycott because they have reprehensible business practices. Some of them are out-and-out urban legends. I’ve seen e-mails asking Black people to boycott Estee Lauder, Colgate-Palmolive, Tommy Hilfinger, Liz Claiborne, Denny’s… the list goes on. I have never once heard anyone say, “Boycott Wachovia Bank!” Not to say it hasn’t happened. But as a fairly networked Black professional, I’ve never heard anything about it.

Let the recipients of such apologies determine their worth. It might not work for you, but then again, are you the intended target of the apology?

[brickbacon]

@buttonjockey308

No, repaying a debt is a good idea. In fact, it’s the only right thing to do, but the idea that money equals justice is too flawed to even properly argue. We don’t enslave entire races anymore, and if that’s not one HELL of a lesson, I don’t know what is.

Repaying a debt is often part of a just outcome.

@buttonjockey308

Talk in circles much? First you say “it’s not about the money” then you say “money would be really neat” Which is it?

First, I never use words like neat. Second, I never said it wasn’t about the money. I said I don’t favor direct individual payments, and that the money was secondary to gaining equality, etc.

@buttonjockey308

Because they have no education to get the jobs, to make the money to change things. It’s called oppression, perhaps you’ve heard of it.

And where and when did this oppression begin???

@buttonjockey308

Good lord no, and it’s offensive to even ask that, which you would know if you knew what I did for a living and who I did it with. Is it a ridiculous statement? My friend, you know not of what you speak. I see it, day in and day out, it’s a fact of life, if you agree or not. Sure, cops should be fair and objective, and many of us are, but the fact is that we deal with the worst of the worst of society in general, and the black culture, because of years of educational and econmic oppression, there are more blacks in jail than any other racial group. C’mon, this is common sense

Yes, it is. But why make excuses for racist cops? If you can’t act fairly, then that’s your problem. Do judges get a pass because they deal exclusively with the scum of society? Cops love to pretend they are the victims, and I don’t buy it. If the job is too hard, then go pump gas or something. Plenty of cops in terrible cities manage to act appropriately. It’s not rocket science.

@buttonjockey308

And it’s true, not all cops need degrees, but I’m going on current information (within the last decade or so).

OK, then why try to imply that not having enough college educated applicants is the reason why there aren’t many black cops? We both know that’s not the reason.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Askia

[when the reparations lawsuits do start to come, you should realize you’ve essentially enabled your own self-fulfilling prophecy.

But I thought we were agreed that reparations will most likely NOT start to come.

I really don’t get how you can agree with me that reparations are very unlikely to happen and then predict grave danger for me (about which I’m not too worried, thanks) in their eventuality.

Do you see how this makes you appear contradictory, and how it makes me (assuming you’re sincere and not just posturing) wonder if you’re just conflicted about the likelihood of reparations?

It just occurs to me–maybe I need some further education. Maybe the parameters of what “reparations” actually entails are more closely defined than I’m thinking. (What I find daunting about the concept is the idea of a bottomless pit of money going out to people who remain dissatified with the amount, which keeps growing to a never-ending chorus of “Uh-uh, not enough, nope, still not enough, keep shoveling, not even close to making up for my people’s suffering, nope, we’re still oppressed here…”). Is there some source I can read that estimates the neighborhood of money being discussed, the nature of distribution, the effects on the economy, etc.? so I’m not just ignorantly assuming it’s just “a whole shitload of money” were talking about here? Thanks.