I guess, technically, at the time, slaughtering Jews was legal in Germany.

<CrazyClimber> okaaaaay
<CrazyClimber> on the trib's front page:
<CrazyClimber> "Nearly 140 years after slavery was abolished in this country, corporations that have any historic connection to the institution were today put on notice they'll have to open their books if they want to win lucrative Chicago city contracts"
<CrazyClimber> it just gets weirder in the story, which is at http://www.chicagotribune.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=chi%2D020912slavery
<raven> historic connection as in...what, shackle manufacturer?
<CrazyClimber> apparently the big issue is insurance, since slaves were often insured as property, it says
<Samwise> Ugh.
<Samwise> The whole slavery reparations thing rubs me the wrong way.
<CrazyClimber> eh, if nintendo or rca or something had started out as slaves r us, i wouldn't mind knowing.
<Samwise> True, but I don't think this is knowledge for its own sake.
<CrazyClimber> well, there's a good example cited in the story, although even just those few paragraphs would be an annoyingly long paste.
<CrazyClimber> essentially, a bank is redeveloping some land in chicago, and one of the hundreds of the banks that have merged over the last couple hundred years is suspected of having financed slavery runs.
<Samwise> OK...
<CrazyClimber> and all the spokesman can say is
<CrazyClimber> In a telephone interview this afternoon, FleetBoston spokesman Jim Mahoney said, "There are hundreds of predecessor banks to this current company. We don't have any records for that period. We agree, however, that (slavery) is a shameful period of history."
<CrazyClimber> and he's right
<raven> well....so?
<CrazyClimber> but the story also says
<CrazyClimber> "Martha Biondi, professor of African-American studies at Northwestern University, testified today the Providence Bank of Rhode Island, a purported predecessor of FleetBoston, has been accused of having helped finance the enslavement of more than 40,000 slaves between 1791 and 1808."
<CrazyClimber> "Now do you think I would have voted for something like that (project) had I known?" Tillman said.
<Samwise> Wasn't slavery, however deplorable it is to us now, *legal* at the time?
<raven> I mean, significant portions of the country participated and benefited from legal slavery.
<raven> And then we got rid of slavery.
<raven> And then they stopped.
<CrazyClimber> and why aren't these people more interested in, say, nike
<Kyol> <rightwinger> We already have slavery reparations - it's called welfare </rightwinger>
<CrazyClimber> there's no shortage of companies that have horrible working conditions that happen not to be within these borders, today
<Samwise> Right. They didn't go after the bars that converted to ice cream parlors after they passed prohibition. It used to be legal, but when it was illegal, they stopped. You shouldn't be able to mess with that.
<Kyol> Well, if reparations come to pass, it's gonna be expensive, so they're going to want to know who to bleed for dough.
<Samwise> Exactly, Kyol.
<raven> and the *insurance companies*? For christ's sake,
<raven> the insurance companies didn't even subsidize or use slave labor.
<raven> they just insured them.
<CrazyClimber> one of the law's sponsors says,
<CrazyClimber> Burke said disclosure of slavery ties could help heal what remains a "blight on the soul of America."
<Samwise> heal == gimme some money
<spinn> heh, I was just going over that "had I known" quote with someone here at newark
<spinn> who is similarly disgusted
<raven> although, I dunno, this is an interesting point : It's the same as what the Jewish community did," the alderwoman said, referring to recent efforts to force companies to disclose whether they profited from the Holocaust.
<raven> because, I guess, technically, at the time, slaughtering Jews was legal in Germany.
<Kyol> Which is a good point for the cause to make.
<raven> yah
<raven> which is why "had I known" looks so spectacularly moronic next to it.
<spinn> it is, but 1) some of these people are still alive, and 2) the holocaust is a more immediate and unresolved issue
<Samwise> There's a difference there, I think.
<spinn> not that slavery isn't, necessarily, but the holocaust much more so
<Samwise> They don't appeal to Nazi Germany to enforce action against those who profited because of the holocaust.
<CrazyClimber> yeah, i don't think i'd argue so much for a chronological cutoff period
<Kyol> Yeah, my biggest issue with slavery reparations is a) who gets it, and b) gets _what_ 40 acres and a mule, by today's valuation, divided between the heirs of slaves? So that'll turn out to be what, a buck two-fiddy?
<spinn> like, fuck, it's like saying had I known Jebediah Garvey once spit on the sidewalk I'd never have bothered with rave
<CrazyClimber> but i think "are any of these companies really still around" is a pretty important question
<spinn> I think that's only a question because of the stupid ruling that companies are entities with human rights
<spinn> because odds are, the people who were responsible for making those deals are no longer alive
<raven> and it's not like the Jews where property was confiscated, where you can say "That bank confiscated my factory and sold it for $X."
<CrazyClimber> well, here, they aren't asking for money. they're just saying you can't do business.
<raven> which is even stupider.
<CrazyClimber> and they're saying that that's only true if you lie about or hide it.
<Samwise> Bob: it smells like a precursor - information gathering - for an attempt to get money.
<raven> At least if you could say "Bank, you made $1.4M in today's money on slavery, fork it over and we'll call it even." it wouldn't stink as bad as this does. This is more of a character assasination thing and they're making the companies pull the triggers.
<CrazyClimber> well, even finer-grained than that
<Samwise> spinn, that's an excellent point, the more i think about it.
<CrazyClimber> a lot of people *can* prove that they're descended from slaves
<CrazyClimber> and at that point, fine, those people should call those companies
<Kyol> Yeah.
<Kyol> I'd be interested in a stat - how many african americans in the US today are decended from slaves, as a percent, and how many of those were unwilling slaves.
<Samwise> But why does that company owe them? I mean, yes, slavery was abolished, but I don't remember anything about the decision being retroactive.
<CrazyClimber> well, i didn't mention money, sam
<Samwise> Oh. Well, why should those people call those companies?
<CrazyClimber> *shrug* have a little ceremony, shake hands, announce that it's over, maybe fund a scholarship, and call it even
<Samwise> For an apology? "I never had anything to do with slaves, and you were never a slave, but despite that... we're sorry."
<raven> "Really sorry that we brought you to a land of opportunity and then didn't let you go after 7 years like we did with the white kids."
<CrazyClimber> well, i guess i think that if a company that depended on slave labor in the 1700s or 1800s is still around, and successful, and that slave labor helped that happen, i can see where there's a claim to be made.
<CrazyClimber> but, at that point, make them stockholders or something. give them whatever number of shares.
<Samwise> But the slave labor was legal when they profited from it. To say they owe something *now* is retroactively applying the law, which I'm pretty sure is not legal.
<Samwise> *Morally*, these companies' executives/ceo's may say "Wow, we never knew our company's roots were in slavery. We choose to make up for that by making this donation to this charity or social cause."
<CrazyClimber> sure, right
<raven> yeah, and I think that's a good thing to do voluntarily.
<CrazyClimber> but still, that slave was unpaid and almost surely unwilling labor
<Samwise> Bob: but it was legal.
<CrazyClimber> *shrug*
<CrazyClimber> i put value on morality.
<Samwise> To force the companies to pay would be retroactively applying a law, which is verboten.
<CrazyClimber> i'm not talking forcing, sam.
<raven> well, the question is also in what way they profited. Insurance companies that just gave the owners insurance policies is not really profiting on the subjugation of humans like the people who directly used the labor.
<CrazyClimber> but, i'm saying a pr-level move, basically.
<CrazyClimber> that's pretty standard business stuff. someone raises a stink, you work something out so they go away, preferably with both sides looking better in the process.
<raven> eh, I'm never big on PR based on caving to the ignorant.
<CrazyClimber> i don't think it's ignorant.
<CrazyClimber> i'm not saying it's *never*, just that it isn't inherent either.
<raven> The woman who wouldn't have approved a contract if she "had known" - that's fucking ignorant.
<CrazyClimber> which is why i added that.
<raven> People who can say "Hey, my ancestors worked on this plantation that supplied your company!" - yeah, it'd be a win-win to acknowledge that and be generous.
<CrazyClimber> this sentence from the article seems to be overlooked -- "firms that truthfully disclose profit or involvement with slavery would not be penalized, Tillman said."
<raven> well, because when you take it with her other statement, it sounds like bullshit.
<Kyol> Eh, the gun nuts have a point, though, Bob.
<Kyol> get a nice big list of firms that benefited from slavery and while they won't be penalized _now_....
<Samwise> Right, raven. "We won't penalize you... but there's no way in hell we'd've given that contract to you."