A class action suit has been filed in Boston against three large corporations for their connection to slavery in the 19th Century and earlier. The suit reads, in part, “The practice of slavery constituted an ‘immoral and inhumane deprivation of Africans’ life, liberty, African citizenship rights, cultural heritage’ and it further deprived them of the fruits of their own labor.” The three companies, the suit claims, profited from slavery, and are therefore liable for compensation and damages.
FleetBank (which, until recently, held our mortage) is named in the suit. It’s predecessor, Providance Bank of Rhode Is., was founded by (and loaned substantial sums to) one John Brown, who owned, among other things, some slave ships.
Aetna insurance has a predecessor that issued life insurance to slave owners against the loss of their slaves (with a rider that denied coverage in case of lynching, suicide, or death by overwork).
CSX is a successor of a number of smaller railroad companies what were built by, or operated with, slave labor.
Slavery was bad. It was evil. Certainly by modern lights in our society it would be inexcusable.
But can these three companies — or the dozen others yet to be named, according to the plaintiffs — be held responsible for what was done almost 150 years ago, generations ago by both human and corporate standards? Or 200? Or up to almost 400 years ago?
Could I be sued for the crimes of my great, great grandfather? Or his father? Or his? And should I be?
And while I would say the vast majority of Americans today would condemn the African slave trade, at the time it was not only legally permitted, but subject to quite a bit of societal, moral, and ethical debate. While it is an over-simplification to say that the US was actually torn into civil war over it, the slave question was certainly part of that conflict.
So if these companies did something that was legal, that was considered moral and socially acceptible by many (even most) at the time (particularly depending on when in the two-hundred-plus year history of slavery in North America one considers), why should they now be legally compelled to face “jury trial, the appointment of an independent historic commission, restitution of the descendants’ slave labor, disgorgement of illicit profits and compensatory and punitive damages to be determined at trial”?
Now, if these companies choose to do something (and Aetna has evidently considered doing so) on their own, whether for publicity or out of some sense of corporate shame, that is certainly their prerogative, and we might even applaud it. But it doesn’t seem to me to be an ethical standard, let alone a legal one, that any corporation should have to be held to.
Times change. People, and laws, and moral change. It’s one thing to look at companies directly linked to the Holocaust and demand reparations (though even there you can argue the justice of it) for those who suffered and for their children.
But to turn the clock back as far as this suit does … well, then you can only ask who next? I’ll bet I have folks in my Spanish parentage who faced discrimination in hiring or accomodation. Or my Irish heritage. Or my Italian heritage. Whom can I sue for that injustice?
Or, conversely, should I be responsible, were I a shareholder in CSX, Fleet, or Aetna (and, for all I know, I am, via a mutual fund) for something which I didn’t do?
The argument is made, of course, that the impact of slavery on the descendents of those African slaves was so much greater than any individual injustice, and so much more pernicious and pervasive in its long-lasting effects that it warrents reaching back that far.
But it’s not a matter of the actions of individual companies (let alone individual slave traders, -holders, or folks who built the ships or forged the manicles). If there is to be guilt and shame and restitution assigned, it needs to be taken on by our society as a whole. To the extent that slave labor helped build this country during its first eighty years (and for the centuries before it was a country), there is nobody in the US today who has not benefited or profited from it in some fashion.
If someone has to pay, it’s all of us — including, paradoxically, descendents of slaves themselves. Let’s not pretend otherwise by trying to assign blame to some identifiable companies that (a) were involved, as so many other companies and individuals at the time were, and (b) are big, deep-pocket targets.
Good points, Dave. I heard some talk about this on NPR on the way into work in the morning, between all the Catholic priest issues.
Living in New England sure is interesting these days!
[and by the way, it’s Providence Bank of RI]
huh.
let’s go back a bit further, and get some recompense from the tribes that profited immensely by selling their enemies into slavery…
after all, no competition means more for those who remain… more food, more resources, more of everything for the ‘winning’ tribe…
plus they got the gee gaws and pretty bits for trading the slaves themselves.
oh, right.
no big money there…
the difference between suing a corporation and suing a government is, i suspect, the key. a government isn’t so much sued as it is rebelled against, attacked in war, etc. a corporation is an entity, albeit a legal one, and has some of the same rights and responsibilities.
so in a sense the companies being sued are the slavers and slaveholders…in a sense still legally responsible…well, unless the statute of limitations has run out.
Well, that’s a key question then: what is the “statute of limitations” on such crimes? What should it be?
But by the same token, we’re not talking about statutory crimes. Nothing that these companies did was, at the time, illegal. If they did such things today, they’d be busted to the bedrock, and I’d be the first one in there applauding.
But I’m reluctant to say that companies 150, 200, 300 years ago should be held liable today for things that they did then. Just as I’d be reluctant to set the precedent that companies today should try to second-guess the morality and laws of AD 2200 before they take a corporate action.
I’ve got more to say, but it’s all tangled and knotted… I’m going to try…
It’s hard to talk about this without sounding like you are trying to be offensive –
If my grandfather died of cancer caused by smoking, can I sue the company for the loss of his knowledge and his guidance through my youth?
And because I was born an American, does that entitle me to anything more than the freedom to learn, to become who I am, to find out what job or jobs I am suited for and pursue a living? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness… right?
And I keep going back to the concept of ‘If you give a man a fish… if you teach a man to fish…”
I’ve said this before on these pages – We need to teach all of our kids to fish. We have to stop assuming that the inner city kids will get by with a factory job and won’t need to do much more than balance a check book. Those jobs aren’t there any more.
I am heavily on the money for eductation front… You give these kids an eductation – give them an opportunity to have white collar, respectable jobs – maybe they won’t feel so shortchanged and desparate for money they can see others have…
I don’t know. I have a brother who had an eductation – did terrible – thought he was too smart for it (.09 GPA – passed the 11th grade exam with a 100% – he thought that was the only goal he needed to achieve…) and is now lanquishing in a state a few notches above squalor… so I know that raising the early goals doesn’t always help…
and I know I am off topic, and haven’t mangaged to say what I wanted.
here’s my 2 cents, anyway…
Hey, the Chinese could sue half a dozen Western powers for that whole opium thing and charge back rent for Hong Kong.
This is ridiculous.
I think your two cents were just fine, Jenn. And it is hard to talk about this without sounding like like some cracker who thinks maybe things were actually better in 1860 than today.
But you don’t have to believe that in order to agree with Ian here. It is ridiculous (or heartbreakingly misguided), and that’s a good example you give. Though, of course, some folks at the Durban conference addressed just that same sort of issue, looking for compensation from the colonial powers for what they did to Africa.
thanks, Ian…
and ***dave, too.
I go off ranting on something like this and when I read what I’ve written it sounds appalling, and I delete it… I went with it this time, because I didn’t sound too bad.
(I’m the kid in the crowd that pulls a quick fade when the topic of politics comes up… it’s easier to just not start.)
I sometimes feel like the “politics” stuff here is jarring amidst the personality tests and “Oh, Kitten was so cute today” and other oddities I usually post. But, then, I always like to keep people on their toes..
mmm…good point. i was just trying to imagine where the legalists would be coming from on this. the co. that i work for celebrated an anniversary last week; i’ve heard lots of gibberish on the subject of co. values, co. continuity, etc.
another point to bring up: did the companies in question stop being morally culpable for their acts?
Well, hell, if you’re going to try to equate moral culpability for civil (let alone criminal) liability, we’re all going to be in a lot of trouble.