Slavery was an abhorrent institution but it is a fact of history. And are we really saying that the United States of America would be a better country today had slavery never existed? The huge contribution of African-Americans to the life, culture and identity of the modern US is a consequence of slavery. Had there been no slave trade there would have been little or no immigration to the US from the African continent, and the country would be far the poorer for it, and very probably far more racist than it is today. (Compare the rampant racism in Russia towards blacks.)
And of course, that assumes that wealth was accumulated through slavery. It’s possible that the slaves were a money-losers for them. (Of course, it’s unlikely that we’ll ever know for sure, but it certainly is a possibility.)
One can talk about punishing corporations that owned slaves. I suppose that there is some validity to that, since a corporation is treated legally as a “person” and that “person” from the 1800s may still be around with us today.
But, in reality, corporations aren’t “real.” All they are are entities made to benefit the stockholders. The people who owned the stock at the time that the slaves were held are all dead now. By punishing the corporation, you’re not really punishing the corporation - you’re punishing all the people who currently have stock in it - and none of the people who have stock in it today had stock in it in 1865, since they are all dead.
This is an interesting point. However, just because you feel somehow better off due to someone else’s suffering, it does not follow that their suffering was a good thing. I’m sure lots of bad things can be rationalized once you start down that road.
Like I said, the utility of Wachovia’s actions is probably minimal- but that doesn’t make them wrong to apologize. monstro and others have made an an excellent point: if a corporation is basically an artificial person for the purpose of holding assets, why would the current management be wrong to apologize for their body’s action in the past? If Wachovia has traced any of its current assets to the slave trade, I don’t understand how you can think they are *wrong * to apologize, assuming the apology is in good faith.
Anyway, I wonder what people here think of apologies by governments and corporations in general. Is the uproar here tied only to the race issue?
Doesn’t matter to me. The CEO, board, and staff of the company didn’t do anything wrong. Even if the apology was genuine (probably it was), it has no moral force. It was directed from someone who did not sin to people who were not the victim.
Actually I rather disagree with this, at least when we’re talking about individuals long past. If the CEO of Evilcorp loots the pension fund and runs off to Switzerland, how can the next CEO, who tries to turn into Goodytwoshoescorp, morally say he’s sorry? He didn’t do anything wrong! The apology may make people feel better, but it’s an empty act.
I disaree. “Proxy” apologies are morally pointless, and moreover a proxy apology for a proxy victim is a extremly weird idea.
I’m just not a symbolic action. I probably could demand the British apologize for their horrendous crimes against the Irish and the Americans of the past discriminating against the same - but what would it do? Those Britons and Americans are dead, as are [most] of my ancestors. Neither party has done me any harm. My grandparents started out pretty poor, and maybe prejudice against Irish (and Slavs amongst other things) was a factor.
No, they are not the same. I hear the point you guys are making but I don’t see that as a valid argument. If you are going to argue that a company is a person, then I feel Wachovia is responsible for the actions of “persons” it has acquired. You guys are making too big a deal out of the fact that the name wasn’t Wachovia when they owned slaves. I think acquisition is like the melding of two persons into one. Their is nothing analogous to this is real life, but if there were, I think the new person is responsible for everything both parties did before the merger. I can see how you would disagree. If you wish for me to amend my statements to, “they profited from slavery,” so be it. I’d rather not cloud the issue on such a minor point.
Once again, please explain to me HOW the current members of Wachovia could have pervented this tragedy? Otherwise it is an empty apology. See, I apologize for Hitler persecuting the Jews. And for Nero burning Rome. And for Egyptians owning slaves as well. How are these apologies meaningful? If Wachovia has owned slaves NOW, then they should apologize.
The crux of this debate is the feeling of responsibilty. For me, an apology goes with being responsible for the actions. An apology may or may not be sufficient, but it is part of the responsibility.
To answer the explicit question in the OP, no, it doesn’t matter, at least to me. However, corporations rarely do anything that they do not perceive to be a benefit to them, absent coercion. If they had apologized to improve their image that would have been meaningless. In this case they were coerced, so the apology is essentially meaningless. An uncoerced apology from which no direct benefit is derived? Hmmm, you might have something there.
The current members of Wachovia are not Wachovia. Wachovia is technically its own person. The current people running it are only speaking on behalf of this technical person. In 1988, Bush the elder apologized to the Japanese interment camp victims. He couldn’t have done anything about it, yet he still apologized. These actions are not without precedence.
No: apologies are, besides acts of contrition. an acknowledgement of wrongful action. Any apology by proxy usually recognizes who the victims and perpetrators are. I agree it’s not just symbolic, but it’s hardly pointless. Maybe you should demand an apology from the British but that’s NIMBY. The issue here is not demanding an apology but whether an apology, once offered, does any good. Yeah, an apology made to proxy victims sounds weird, but hell, fuck around and refuse to acknowledge the wrongdoing long enough there’s gonna be nothing BUT proxy victims, i.e., the descendents of those originally victimized. I’m not sure responsibility dies that easily – from a moral point of view.
Prehaps we should take this one step further: how many people are prepared to an accept an apology from contemporary Western African governments whose progenitors abetted and trafficked in slaves sold to the transAtlantaic slave trade? I mean, if I’m gonna look for an apology in one direction, I’d be a hypocrite not to look the other way, too.
Contrapuntal. They weren’t coerced to making an apology, they complied with the law and revealed the slave ties of their smaller entities and apologized in the same statement. Yeesh.
I am not arguing that a company is a person. I am responding to your assertion that Wachovia owned slaves, which is a falsehood.
How about a marriage? If I were to marry would I be responsible for what my soouse did when she was ten years old?
To me it is not a minor point at all, but a matter of fact. It could easily be argued that many persons and corporations who had no direct or indirect slave holdings still gained financially from slavery. Whole economies relied upon it. Does that count as “profitting from slavery”? How far back and how minutely should each of us search to make sure our hands are clean?
If it were a serious criminal matter and you abetted in concealing it after the fact, yeah. If you knew nothing about it, you’d be presumably cleared of crminal responsibility buy may owe civil damages if you and your wife’s assets are tied. You did marry for better of for worse…
Yeesh away. The fact remains that had they not been forced they would not have done it. That counts as coercion in my book. I was simply making the point that had they done this on their own, and without assuming a direct benefit, then perhaps the apology would carry some weight.
I’m yeeshing 'cuz you don’t get it. Compliance with the law is not coercion. Compliance with the law after defying the law and the law must bring the threat of civil action is coercion, because you had to be threatened before you did anything. See the difference?
** Contrapuntal** Why would it be so wrong, if you met a person, who I don’t know… think of a reason, life turned out badly because of something your spouse did when she was ten years old; to say, you’re sorry their life turned out so badly? What harm does it do to the fabric of society to look at situation that you’re kinda connected to, and admit that they got the short end of the stick, even if you weren’t the one who poked 'em in the eye with it?
As far as I can tell from the article, Wachovia is admitting to no criminal offense, as owning slaves was legal. Would I need to apologize for something my wife did before I met her? Am I responsible for debts incurred when she was single? Surely a simple prenuptual agreement could forestall that consequence.
From Mirriam-Webster online
*One entry found for coerce.
Main Entry: co·erce
Pronunciation: kO-’&rs
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): co·erced; co·erc·ing
Etymology: Latin coercEre, from co- + arcEre to shut up, enclose – more at ARK
1 : to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious – W. R. Inge>
2 : to compel to an act or choice
3 : to bring about by force or threat <coerce the compliance of the rest of the community – Scott Buchanan>
synonym see FORCE
co·erc·ible /-’&r-s&-b&l/ adjective *
Does the law not impose it’s will by force? Would Wachovia had taken this step without said law? It surely had plenty ample opportunity before the law was passed.
No, I don’t believe it is. Also, a company is technically a person (AFAIK).
Sure some acquisitions are like that, but this one isn’t to my knowledge. Most marriages don’t begin with one party ceasing to exist. The two companies in this case became one under the umbrella of Wachovia. It’s not a marriage
First, I’m not conceding that what I said was incorrect. I made the statement I made because I don’t want to get caught up on such a minor point. Second, the difference between direct and indirect profiting is pretty clear.
I suppose if any former slaves were still among living then an apology might be in order. Unfortunately those who were owed an apology for slavery have long since passed on. How many entities owe an apology for slavery? The Federal Government, the states that ratified the Constitution (even northern ones), companies that benefitted from slavery, descendants of individuals who purchased goods involving slave labor, family members with ancestors who owned slaves, and whatever foreigners were involved in the trade.
I guess nobody’s admitted it yet but ancestors on my father’s side owned a few slaves in Texas. I’m certainly not happy that relatives of mine owned slaves but I don’t feel particularly guilty about it nor do I feel the need to track down the descendents of those slaves to give them an apology. If it makes anyone feel better I certainly didn’t benefit to much since a drunken patriarch and the great depression conspired to seperate my family from their money before my father was even born.
You know, maybe the Federal Government should issue some sort of apology. I take it this one apology would be acceptable and then we could forget all about making companies apologize for what happened and move on to more substantial issues. Anyone really think an apology is going to set race relations right? Does it say something about how far we’ve come in civil rights that we can bitch about such a non-issue?