Lehman Brothers takes a financial hit over ties to slavery

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-slave02.html

A financial services firm that employs Mayor Daley's handpicked CTA board chairwoman acknowledged Friday that it has been removed as co-underwriter of a $1.5 billion O'Hare Airport bond issue after failing to file an amended economic disclosure statement spelling out its past ties to slavery.

The decision to remove Lehman Brothers marks the first time that a company has suffered financial consequences for failing to honor a slave disclosure ordinance pioneered in Chicago and copied across the nation.

The punishment comes a few weeks after Lehman Brothers acknowledged that its founders owned not one, but several slaves during the Civil War era and that, "in all likelihood," the firm "profited significantly" from slavery.

At the time, general counsel Joe Polizzotto said the firm was "deeply apologetic" for what it called the "sad part of our heritage" and vowed to do more research before filing an amended disclosure statement.

$500,000 fine

[LARED]

1. Does this make more sense?

I wish laws like this were geared toward companies disclosing if they have business ties to countries that PRESENTLY have slavery.

Finding out a company had several slave more than 150 years ago, seems rather pointless when it was legal and common.

[NNN0LHI]

3. Yea lets ignore the companies who profited from slavery here in America

And then lets go chasing after others who do the same shit in some country on the other side of the world. Yea thats just the ticket.

Don

[LARED]

4. Great idea

Very sensible. We SHOULD ignore it. It is pointless and gratuitous to fine a company $500,000 for failing to report something that was legal and common 150 years ago. It adds nothing positive to the race issue in this country.

[malaise]

5. Pointless and gratuitous?

It adds nothing to the race issue? On the contrary it sends a clear signal to today's racists. All who profited from slavery should be ostracized. Additionally, all who profit from this illegal war in Iraq should also suffer.

[LARED]

7. All?

On the contrary it sends a clear signal to today's racists. All who profited from slavery should be ostracized.

Where do you draw the line? Slavery has been a plague on mankind around the world for thousands of years. Should we fine all companies that fail to reveal ties to slavery from more than a century ago in countries of South America, Central America, Africa, Should we fine companies that had no slaves but did business with companies that did? Should the ancestors of slave owner pay an extra tax? Make public apologies for their forefather? What about black slave owners. should their families be striped of income as well.

How does this improve the racism issue of today?

[malaise]

11. I'm dealing with Plantation slavery

between the 1600s and 19th century. All banks and corporation who profited should be ostracised and forced to pay reparations.

Read Willie Lynch's famous speech of 1712 on The making of a slave, then read some of Blassingame's Slave Testimonies and understand what was done to one race by another.

John Taylor's justification of slavery (using the bible and pseudo-science) is remarkably similar to the right wing's defence of Bush and his war.
An apology for earlier generations is not required. What is required is that this generation really understands what was done and support for reforms that once and for all remove the privileges associated with The Racial Contract which is still the dominant ideology in America.

[sunnystarr]

24. I wonder if they fine all the countries in Middle East

and beyond for holding Jews as slaves. How about all the other slaves held in Rome? How about returning all the land that became spoils of war to those families that inhabited it? How far back do you want to go? Let's return all the land to the Indians and we can all move back to where our families originated. This argument is ridiculous and so is fining a company that once traded in slavery when it was legal and part of the fabric of our economy. Our own government was founded by slave owners.

[LARED]

32. The way I read you is

you are only interested in vengeance. You don't want apologies, you say you only want people to understand the horrors of slavery, but you want those with no responsibility for slavery to pay those not directly harmed by slavery. I understand there is a legacy that came with slavery still felt today, but reparations (IMO) will not right the wrongs from the past. It will only create hostility by those paying to those getting.

BTW, having only read reviews of "The Racial Contract" I think it's premise has some merit but some conclusions drawn are rather dubious. On the other hand the social contract was a paradigm that did greatly help eliminate slavery in Western Culture.

[rpannier]

9. I disagree

It sends no message. You could make a strong case that a majority of white Americans benefited from slavery in some way or another, be it directly from owning them or indirectly by owning a business that oh say...shipped cotton to Europe. To say we should ostracize people living today for what their ancestors had done is just damned silly, bordering on inane fanaticism. No one should be held responsible for what their relatives do or have done.
Hopefully, you have no skeletons in your closet that others can use against you.

[Zynx]

14. Thank you. You took the words right out of my mouth.

My ancestors did not largely come to this country until the 19th century and came to it through the north mostly, though some lived in Kentucky. I'm sure you could argue that they economically benefitted from salvery, though they never owned any slaves. Should I be punished for this?

[Rabrrrrrr]

18. "All who profited from slavery should be ostracized" - how asinine.

EVERYBODY, even the abolitionists, profited from slavery. People in OTHER COUNTRIES benefited from American slavery; and many benefitted from the slavery that they had.

EVERY SINGLE PERSON who lived in America from the time the first slaves were brought here until slavery ended profited from slavery.

So, what do we do? Check the records at some government office, and anyone who had ancestors living in America before the civil war should be booted out of the country? Or denied any federal benfits? Take away their right to vote? Right to work? Right to have a bank account or own property? Put 'em in ghettos? Maybe just round 'em up and gas 'em?

Just how fucking ridiculously far are you willing to take this insanity?

[Tim4319]

43. Yes, it happened over 150 years ago!

But, multi billion dollar companies have built their foundation on the backs of slaves, while their great, great, great, great, great grand children are still struggling to make ends meet. So, by no means it this pointless and gratuitous.

[Rabrrrrrr]

2. Sweet Mother of God, who the fuck cares if a company

has ties to American slavery?

I care only if they have ties to current slavery.

But to slavery that ended 140 years ago?

For fuck's sake, that's utterly ridiculous.

[NNN0LHI]

6. Can't we be concerned about both past and current slavery?

That way we all won't look like a bunch of fucking hypocrites.

Don

[LARED]

8. We are not hypocrites

We would be hypocrites if we rallied against slavery while allowing it to exist today. Changing your actions due to a change of values is not hypocritical.

That is why having companies reveal present day ties to counties that PRESENTLY allow slavery makes more sense. Not doing that makes us look hypocritical

[ecstatic]

12. I care, even if you don't

If a company got rich due to slavery, I feel I should know about it. And no, they will not get my business.

[Rabrrrrrr]

17. So, you'll punish a company that had ties to slavery 140 years ago...

a good couple generations or so before any of the current employees were even born, because of some righteous stance against slavery; but you continue to LIVE in the country that ALLOWED those companies to profit from it...

:shrug:

No one is innnocent. Even the northern companies that had no slaves, benefitted from slaves. In fact, EVERY person who was alive in the United States, and in any country that traded with the United States, before slavery was abolished benefitted from slavery.

[goclark]

25. I care too

I know this is a hot button at DU so I will just say this...
Maybe, just maybe if other companies read about Lehman they won't be so quick (like the NeoCons)to make greed the central focus of their business.

Will it solve the horrors of slavery,no!

Did it put others on notice when Martha Stewart went to jail, for something that IMO, was small change compared to Enron?


Huuum... Enron, did they EVER get their hands slapped for treating their employees like slaves?

[1932]

26. Apparently Lehman Bros does. They don't want people to have this

information.

There was no penalty for them if they disclosed this information.

However, disclosing it would certainly give people in our democracy some information on which to form their opinions about justice and fairness, and apparently Lehman is happier losing the money from this work than they are giving people facts andn contribution to public knowledge and therefore the public debate on this issue.

[Zynx]

29. What exactly does this accomplish?

The modern Lehman Brothers has nothing to do with the actions of the past. None of the current employees of Lehman Brothers had anything to do with slavery and the connection from Lehman to slavery is very thin only having to do with the fact that the founders owned slaves. If you look back far enough, virtually any company still around from the 19th century probably had some connection to slavery. Do we want to punish them all as well? While we're at it, let's make sure that none of the descendants of slave owners can find jobs and let's impose special taxes on them too!

[1932]

33. Awareness? Informed opinion? Nobody is harmed by knowing the facts.

You must be aware that there are huge variations among the possilbe degrees to which corporations that are rich today got rich from bad acts, and having this information gives you information about that range of possibilities.

Do you know how "Swiss Banks" got so rich? Well, apprently from stealing a lot of money out of the safe deposit boxes of victims of fascism. And thanks to laws like this one in Chicago, we had enough facts to be able to put a value on that theft and to reapportion it justly.

[LARED]

31. I wonder

if this is true

There was no penalty for them if they disclosed this information.

I'm sure there was a calculated risk that Lehman Bro's took by not revealing this information. Maybe they figured 500,000 was cheap compared to the alternatives.

[1932]

34. I think that's exactly right. They decided to pass on the $500,000

because they knew that this information in the hands of the public would probably encourage a just outcome that might cost them more than $500,000.

[creeksneakers2]

10. Chicago should take the $500,000 fine

and give it back to the Indians.

[Zynx]

13. This is insanity.

None of the current executives or workers of any company in the United States had anything to do with the slave trade back in the 19th century. I am much more concerned about what companies are doing currently that abuses human rights.

[datasuspect]

15. "this is insanity . . . "

karma is a bitch . . .

imagine how "insane" many who were ripped from their homes in africa and set to work in plantation fields felt.

separation from their culture, their land, their families . . .

and people get worked up because LEHMAN BROS. gets fined 500 grand (a drop in the bucket for a company like that).

oh well.

[Zynx]

16. Why don't I demand fines for British firms who may have...

benefitted from(or at least participated in) the oppression of the Irish and the Catholics back in 17th and 18th centuries?

[Rabrrrrrr]

19. I'd like to fine Germany for booting my ancestors out in the 1800s

Can I?

[Tomee450]

36. Why don't you try?

I have no problem with that.

[Rabrrrrrr]

39. Because it would be fucking stupid, that's why

Maybe I should go after Rome, too, since they decided to invade the lands that later became Germany, and fucked up the culture.

Maybe I should go after Greece for giving Rome the idea.

Maybe I should go after Egypt for giving Greece the idea.

How far does the insanity and the bullshit go?

I find UNCONSCIONABLE and UNETHICAL and OUTRAGEOUS that a company (or anyone) can still be "held liable" for shit that happened long before any of the people currently involved were even born.

Why not go after companies that benefited from child labor in the 1800s and early 1900s? Or pay reparations to their descendants? How about the Jews stuck in the sewing factories? Do they get reparations? Do we fine GM and Ford and Chrysler because they shot at their workers in the early 1900s when they tried to unionize?

It's time to get out of the past, and move into the present and the future.

I really don't give a damn if a company dealt with slaves 150 years ago. What are they doing now? That's my question.

If we believe that this kind of crap is okay to do, then who's to stop someone in the future, say the great great grandson of a kid I hit in elementary school, from trying to get money from my great great grandson?

There have to be limits, and I think 150 years is far beyond any reasonable limit to hold a company accountable.

And son of a bitch, but Lehman Brothers has traded hands a number of times in the last 25 years. Lehman Brothers, then into Shearson Lehman, then something else, then something else, then finally put back out as an independant company that finally went public and sold stock in the very laste 1980s.

How can you even say it's the same company?

[1932]

38. There's a legal principle called laches.

If you sit on your rights too long after knowing the facts, you can't make a claim that you could have made sooner.

The point of this law in Chicago and of the (very similiar) laws New York state passed relating to Swiss banks' Nazi dealings is that they're trying to establish the facts so that people can know if they have actionable rights.

[1932]

27. The article calls it a fine, but it sounds like it's just the money theyre

losing from not getting the business.

The article is very unclear on this point.

[Zynx]

28. Well, it is a punishment nonetheless.

It's not actually a fine so much as it is a loss of a contract. However, my point remains.

[Tomee450]

35. So what does that have to

do with slavery in this country? If the Irish wish to go after the British, they should do it. It's easy for people whose ancestors were not slaves to dismiss claims for reparations, not so easy for the descendants of slaves. And it was not only slavery, but over a hundred years of Jim Crow for which no one has been held accountable. Many of the descendants of slave owners are wealthy today off the back of slaves while millions of the descendants of slaves live in poverty.

[1932]

37. Exactly.

[Rabrrrrrr]

20. It's completely irrelevant

Of course slavery was awful, wrong, and evil. But you have two fallacies in your post:

1. Doesn't matter how "insane" those who were ripped from their homes felt, IN THIS ARGUMENT. That beside the point - you are saying, "Because their situation was insane, we can therefore totally justify any insanity we do today"

2. Just because a fine is a drop in the bucket, doesn't mean it's okay. "Ooh, Lehman has a lot of money, let 'em be fined". Well, no - that's not fair at all. How about if we just start fining people randomly for, say, five dollars? We can use your sense of legal and ethical fairness and say "For fuck's sake, it's just five dollars - it's a drop in the bucket. You can afford it."

I don't care how much money a company (or a person) has, an unfair fine is an unfair fine. Silly logic like yours doesn't help at all.

[Zynx]

21. I really like your second argument.

I would fight tooth and nail if someone tried to wrongly take five dollars from me. I wouldn't just say, "Meh. There's more where that came from.".

[datasuspect]

23. it's too bad

slavery was real, was financed by still existing british and american firms, and turnabout is fairplay.

good for chicago.

[girl gone mad]

22. what are they thinking?

This kind of nonsense gives liberals a bad name.

[jmowreader]

30. I have a better law

Instead of making companies disclose whether anyone who ever worked there ever owned a slave 150-some years ago, make them disclose how many of their executives employ illegal aliens as housekeepers and nannies.

Illegal aliens are the slaves of today. Let's go after the people who own them.

[DubyaSux]

40. Something I can't figure out...

...African-Americans wish to be called "African", but were sold into slavery by Africans. Yet, they want to punish ancestors none of us have ever known for the deed?

Is that consistent or am I missing something?

[Rabrrrrrr]

41. Not all Africans who ended up in slavery were sold by their kindred

Many were, for sure - but some were also captured by whites without any help from other Africans.

Not that I don't agree with you for thinking it silly to punish people for the acts of their long-dead ancestors. In fact, I'm one of those people who is held to be "guilty", but whose only ancestors on this continent at the time of slavery were Native Americans; my caucasian ancestors didn't come here until the end of the 1800s, when they were basically booted out of Germany because Germany had too many people, and my ancestors were just poor trash and thus "not good enough" to stay.

Just wanna point out that while there was incredible trafficking of Africans by Africans, not all who became slaves became slaves that way.

[Yupster]

42. I think it would be a rare and brave and stupid

European that would wander far from the African coast or even far from his boat as there were more tropical diseases that he had no immunity from that he could even name.

Mosquitos and tse tse flies kept Europeans from wandering around Frica very much.