I’ve never understood from what well of power a city government dips into to produce a law dictating the research of history by a company. There is no line of logic behind it and I don’t see how it could be enforced. The law has no purpose. I would have sent the mayor 2 tickets to reality attached to a letter asking him to apologize for wasting my company’s time.
We are agreed the reparations aren’t likely to come. I typed, reparations lawsuits will comes as a self fulfilling prophecy, i.e. refusing to apologize will make reparations demands more likely to happen and therefore that much more likely to succeed. Miraculous things start to happen when Negroes get to marching and singing and carrying on.
Quit skipping key words like “lawsuits” yu might grasp this a bit easier.
Clearly we’ve esablished the problem is your reading skills and not any imagined conflicts on my part. I’ve been remarkably consistent for four years now.
As for estimates, what was the number reached when reparations was brought up on that one episode of The West Wing? **One point seven trillion dollars? ** That’s fictional, though. I real life we can probrably genrously round that down to one trillion, easy. I beleive that congressman in Michigan drafted something to that effect.
Magiver. Local government can pass all sorts of non-tax compliant ordinances to businesses dictating everything to the height of buildings to compelling restrictions on where they can be zoned to operate. It’s just the cost of doing business. Your firing off a letter like that might have the effect of backfiring bigtime if the contents of your letter was leaked to the press.
I think we should give reparations. 10 million dollars to everyone who was a slave in 1865. :dubious: No one else gets a nickel.
We might have to fiddle with final numbers and the year and throw in a clarifiyng word like, I dunno, “descendant” – but you got yourself a fine idea in the rough draft, Drdeth.
Again, the law has no purpose. What is the cost of non-compliance? What constitutes non-compliance? Cities can enact all kinds of goofy laws but they don’t hold up in court.
What do you mean when you say such a letter of rebuke would backfire on the company?
Magiver. The law serves the purpose of gathering information about companies that might be targeted for reparations if their benefit from slavery was heinous enough. The cost of non-compliance is likely the loss of the right to do business in Chicago. Non-compliance presumably means not fully disclosing your ties to slavery in the past, so refusing or obsfucating disclosures could be costly.
Chicago has a huge African-American population, Nearby Gary, IN is 99/9% black. Do you really want it known as a business leader that disclosing whether or not your company had ties to slavery is something the mayor should deserve two reality checks for and “apologize for wasting your time?” Maybe you are suicidal like that, but your stockholders won’t appreciate such sentiments in print.
I fail to see why this kind of ordinance would fail to hold up in court.
If you are attempting to justify an accusation that you made in post #93, on page 2 of this thread, by posts that were made subsequent to that, then I suspect that the finer points of debate are lost on you. If any of your suppositions about my perceptions can be supported by reference to my posts, I would be happy to see evidence of that. Of course you do not have to submit evidence of anything, if you choose not to. It would just make it seem less like you are talking through your hat, that’s all.
It is becoming clearer to me now. You think you can reads minds!
You responded to a comment I made to brickbacon concerning the difference between owning a thing and being responsible for that thing. If you were simply cherry-picking it and taking it out of context surely you can excuse me for not knowing that, as there was nothing to lead me there.
I have stated, both explicitly and implicitly, that Wachovia took over the assets and liabilities of the acquired companies. If it is your assertion that taking over assets means owning slaves then I will have to ask you, as I have asked brickbacon, for a cite.
Please show anywhere that I have suggested that a “connection” does not exist. I am not sure who you are arguing with here, but it is not me.
(Bolding mine in both quotes)
Ah, now we get to the meat of the thing. I am not “the intended target”, therefore I have no standing. Your prejudice is showing, and it isn’t pretty.
There is only one “c” in Contrapuntal.
It is point 4 that logic does not allow you to make. It is an unfounded assertion. I challenge it. Your next move, if I am wrong, is to show me why, rather than simply re-state the assertion.
I accused you of debating dishonestly, a misunderstanding that you cleared up. I also said that you stated a falsehood. The question of slave ownership by Wachovia is a matter of fact, not opinion; therfore it must be either true or false. It’s status cannot determined by appeals to belief, or feelings. This may be where you have gone off course.
And other posters have stated that Wachovia is to be respected because of all the other companies who disclosed slavery connections but did not apologize.
I have made it clear that we have no way of knowing one way or the other, but it does not follow that one scenario is just as likely as another, a position I elaborated here and here.
Dang, I did not see this on preview. So you now agree that there was a force compelling them to act?
Ok, let me understand this, me with my poor reading skills:
You favor reparations, and you think the only thing that will bring them about is if no apologies are forthcoming so a lot of “Negroes get to marching and singing and carrying on,” which carrying-on includes lawsuits, which will lead to reparations being won–so why don’t you then encourage no apologies being offered, which will bring about the reparations you want? By asking for apologies, you’re derailing the only course that will bring about reparations.
You just described a shakedown. That’s illegal. Why not force the companies to put a large scarlet letter on their building? How would you feel if a business decided to pull out of Gary Indiana because of a hostile atmosphere created entirely by the city government in the form of a shakedown? It’s curious you mentioned stockholders. Stockholders would not appreciate a bunch of lawsuits. “ Suicidal” is losing another business in Gary IN.
I’ve already diverted my money from Chicago because of something the Mayor did. Every year I run up the shoreline and admire the cityscape as I take my money into Wisconsin. Stupid gets expensive. In the age of mass communication and bottom line business practices there is little reason to locate a corporate headquarters in a large city and every reason to relocate out.
Since other companies have not apologized, the onus is on you to show why Wachovia would be compelled to apologize when the others were not. What are your theories?
Entirely possible if there was some slave trading happening in Bavaria. And there likely was, at least at some point in history. My parents traced back their heritage a few hundred years before hitting some snags.
I can’t guarantee anything about the slave trade and my ancestors’ involvement. More importantly, I can’t say (because very few individuals can) how much I’ve gained from slavery. I have gained from it. That’s a certainty. I can even give a specific example. My town does Civil War re-enactments every couple of years. There’s an influx of tourism and tourist money at that time. Slavery was a major cause of the Civil War. Therefore, I benefit from slavery’s former existence. How much? I don’t know. But the connection is there.
My town has a statue of a Civil War general right in the middle of it. A couple of towns over, there’s a museum dedicated to another Civil War general, right downtown (our general only merits the statue and a plaque a half a block up the street from me. I pass it when I walk to the market or the library). Try to separate out how much slavery has given me, as a white descendant of German (and a couple of Irish) immigrants of the late 19th century. I don’t have a formula.
But I know the benefit is there. The work people do doesn’t disappear. I am sorry for the slavery. I regret all of the additional bullshit piled upon American persons of African descent. Since I don’t know, can’t know, exactly what’s what, I apologize for the lot of it.
I’m sorry.
[quoteMaybe your ancestor was an escort on the Trail of Tears. (Not that anybody has advocated apologizing for that.)[/QUOTE]
I don’t have any ancestors who were involved with the Trail of Tears, but I have, again, benefited from it, and for the oppression and eradication and assimilation of other Indian cultures. And, again, I apologize for it. Later in the thread you show that you’ll throw my apology out as worthless, and I can’t help that. But I can say that I’m sorry. I regret the treatment of the Indian populations. I benefit from their tribulations. I can’t undo the past, but I can apologize for it.
I’m sorry.
Contrapuntal - sorry for consistently getting your name wrong.
The exact location of the post I referred to was post 103, page 3. That wasn’t clear, so I can see how you may have missed it. My bad.
I also re-read your comments on ownership and responsibility. I now see that you were making a specific reference to the pre-Wachovia entities, so you’re right, that quote is out of context. Again, I apologize for not noting that in my initial read. But this presents me with the opportunity to give my reasoning on my an apology is apt from Wachovia:
- Wachovia willingly links itself to the Georgia Railroad and Banking Company and the Bank of Charleston. They could certainly make an argument that they are a different company altogether, but they didn’t.
- The assets and liabilities of the two companies became those of Wachovia when they merged. You agree with this point. Here’s where we likely diverge - some of those assets were obtained through the labor of slaves; indeed some of the assets were slaves. So no, the bank under the moniker Wachovia didn’t own slaves, but their market value and assets were bolstered because of the unpaid, uncompensated work of slaves.
- Rather than give the unsatisfactory response, “Hey the companies that owned slaves and used their labor to profit are gone, so that’s a wound that’s just gonna remain left open,” Wachovia sees how their position as a bank today was incumbent on the the actions of the predecessors, who to my knowledge never apologized or made amends for the free labor of slaves. So the opportunity to attempt to right that wrong has been presented to Wachovia. They took it.
Note that I never said that Wachovia owned slaves.
My comment was that perhaps this analysis is incorrect: that it isn’t a benevolent or shamed-induced response, but perhaps the company’s board or shareholders spearheaded this research.
That’s for you to ascertain. I know nothing about your nationality or descent. The apology is “to all Americans, and especially to African-Americans and people of African descent.” I’ve noted this throughout the thread. I’m asking a question, not making a statement - I actually find your accusation of prejudice off-base and without merit.
I would also suggest if you are indeed in the demographic and national group that Wachovia is targeting and it means nothing to you, they’re not really speaking to you either - my two cents there.
Wachovia Bank must have many black stockholders and employees. Since the apology was made on behalf of the corporation as a whole, who are those black stockholders and employees apologizing to? Themselves? Or is this apology an unintentional admission that those who control the company all benefited from slavery; i.e., there are practically no black people in positions of influence at the company?
Your apology is worth much more than one typed out by an aid to a bureaucrat in an institution that systematized the extermination of people. At least it comes from your heart — a thing the institution does not have.
Contrapuntal. Oh, absolutely they were compelled. I merely disagree Wachovia was in any way coerced into disclosing their ties to slavery or forced into apologizing for it.
pseudotriton ruber ruber. Because I prefer voluntary reparations to reparations won via lawsuits. Because I prefer sincere apologies by companies who once profitted from slavery and the implementation of programs, opportunities and skills designed to break the cycle of racist generational poverty that has gripped many black families since slavery than reparations won via lawsuits. I prefer a formal U.S. government apology acknowledging the wrongs done to slaves during slavery and other wrongs componded in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War than US government reparations won by lawsuits. That it was a crime against humanity that has never been adequately redressed by this nation is not at issue here (to me and several other posters.) What matters is the redress. There’s plenty of things I’d prefer happen first, but apologizing and righting these historic wrongs don’t seem high on anyone’s list, so barring that happening I support the lengthier, divisive, resource-consuming process of provocative 21st century demonstrations and anti-demonstrations that would would accompany a serious national discussion on reparations. For some odd reason this country never gets the importance of African-American issues being marginalized until blacks get good and pissed about it: slave rebellions, emanicipation, suffrage, segregation, integration, poverty, apartheid, the King holiday. So, yeah. Reparations. This debate here on the SDMB may well be repeated in the years to come if these kinds of lawsuits ever start snowballing.
magiver. What? No. What I described was “getting burned.” A shakedown would apply if I threatened to disclose the contents of your business letter to the community at large unless you did something for me. Getting burned means the letter pissed someone off enough that it is leaked to the press “accidentally” or in some other calculated way designed to inflict maximum PR damage to your company. Getting burned means I want to see you twist on your words awhile. Stockholders might well decide to replace you for firing off such a stupid letter rather than pull out of the area. Or perhaps, as you assert, the mayor’s office will catch heat for leaking the letter and damages the business clime. This is why I’m not a politician. I’m too vindictive.
Liberal. Wow. So, in your worldview no institution that has committed or abetted in atrocity is capable of having sincere or worthwhile change of heart? Wow, that’s cynical. Even I think the U.S. government has had a change of heart, it just needs to man up and apologize.
Hyperelastic. It’s a bit simplistic to ask, “Was Wachovia apologizing to itself?” but since you ask, sure. Yes, it has shareholders, employees and executives who, as Americans (and especially as African-Americans) may feel offended by Wachovia’s allegiances to other banks with slaveholding ties, but it is making the appropriate overtures of apology and regret for doing so.
Hippy Hollow, brickbacon, monstro: my curiosity is getting the better of me. “Askia” is my name IRL. What’s with “Hippy Hollow,” "brickbacon" and "monstro?"
Post 103–
Now I am totally confused.
it would have been facile in this case. From the article-bolding mine.
“*Charlotte, N.C.-based Wachovia (down $0.27 to $51.08, Research) issued a 111-page report to comply with a Chicago ordinance that requires companies that do business with the city to disclose whether they profited from slavery, which ended in the United States in 1865. *”
Arguing that they were a different company would have no bearing on whether they would have to comply with the ordinance.
We do not diverge there. I might add the caveat that we have no idea whether they netted a profit from slaves; only that slaves showed up at one time on the P side of the balance sheet.
Here is where we diverge. Point by point–
- False dichotomy. It was not an either or situation. They could have released the report without comment.
2)They did not “take the opportunity.” Their arm was twisted. If I have a neighbor whom I suspect of killing cats in the neighborhood, but who says nothing about it until I twist his arm, and he throws in an apology at the end, am I not safe in questioning his motives?
3)The idea that an apology by Wachovia, sincere or not, could be construed as an attempt to “right the wrong” of slavery leaves me speechless, other than to say that it must not have been as bad as we have been led to believe.
Noted. Note that I never said you did.
You would then have to account for the remarkable coincidence of the “spearheading” happening at the same time as the Chicago ordinance. You would also have to ignore this quote from the article, copied by me above–"*to comply with a Chicago ordinance *"
Then I retract it and apologize. However, since I am an American, how could I not be in the intended audience?
So apologies only have meaning if the receiver thinks they do? In other words, the OP (Does it matter?) is not debateable. If the meaning of the apology depends upon individual interpretation, then it is impossible to mount an argument either way. It all comes back to “it is so because I say it is so.”
So they were compelled, but not coerced or forced. How many ways you gonna skin this hare?
I was merely countering “some posters have said A” with “some posters have said B”. I feel no onus. I have stated my theories here and here , and provided these links at least once before.
Is the hare I’m skinning you or this argument of yours?
Look, it’s a useful distinction. Someone compelled to do something may be entirely motivated to do the thing on their own without being directly coerced, influenced or told by an authority it needs to be done. Wachovia was by law compelled to comply with the ordinance; you have offered no evdence their compliance was forced, or that the apology was coerced.