More on reperations
YogsVR4
03-29-2004, 02:24 PM
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1179641,00.html
Centuries after Africans were beaten, chained and transported in their millions across the Atlantic, Britain's role in the slave trade is set to resurface in sensational fashion in a New York courtroom.
Descendants of black American slaves are preparing a multi-billion dollar action against Lloyd's of London, the best-known name in world insurance, for allegedly financing the trading fleets that uprooted them from their homelands and condemned them to generations of slavery in the New World.
The dramatic claim, to be filed tomorrow, is the latest in which 'UK plc' is being forced to confront allegations of a murky past. In recent years a host of British companies have been sued for allegedly collaborating with South Africa's racist apartheid regime.
The claim against Lloyd's could prove far more damaging. Black leaders are using DNA technology to link themselves with recorded slave ships and have enlisted Edward Fagan, the feared New York lawyer who extracted huge Nazi gold settlements from German and Swiss companies, to lead the case.
Lloyd's is expected to deny it is liable for slavery, but news of the case will cause consternation within its gleaming steel-and-glass headquarters in the City of London, where the insurance giant is tipped to make profits of £1 billion this year.
The sharp-suited brokers and cutting-edge technology that now characterise Lloyd's are only the latest incarnation in a long and controversial history. It was founded by Edward Lloyd in a London coffee shop in 1688 to provide cover for merchants whose ships were regularly lost at sea. Just like today, it was the centre of the insurance and shipping world in the 1700s and early 1800s, when many shipowners were making vast fortunes by shipping slaves from Africa to America and Britain's colonies in the Caribbean.
Before slavery was abolished in the British Empire in the 1830s, and three decades later in the United States, more than 10 million people are thought to have been sold to slave traffickers at west African ports before being herded on to boats for the long voyage to America. The ships often stopped for supplies at Bristol, London or Liverpool. The slaves suffered severe mistreatment, malnutrition and overcrowding on the way, with around 20 percent dying at sea; on arrival in America, those who had survived the journey were permanently separated from their families and friends and sold.
Deadria Farmer-Paellman, one of the plaintiffs in the case, has traced her ancestors to the Mende people of Sierra Leone. She told The Observer: 'African Americans today are also the victims of genocide: our ethnic and national groups were destroyed by slavery. This is illegal under US and international law. We still do not know anything about who we are.
'We were referred to as cargo on shipping records, not by our names, nationality or ethnic groups, as other immigrants into America were. This, as well as all the murder and mistreatment our ancestors suffered, is the definition of genocide and Lloyd's of London aided and abetted it.'
Antoinette Harrell-Miller, another of the claimants, said: 'Like any other ethnic group living in America, I have the right to know who I am. Lloyd's of London and others must repair the damage they caused.'
Historical records identify around 30,000 'slaving' expeditions sailing between Africa and the Americas over 300 years, although it is not clear how many of these would have been insured at Lloyd's. But the plaintiffs, 10 black Americans who have traced their ancestors to specific slave-trading episodes, claim that many of these armadas could not have crossed the Atlantic without the financial safety net that Lloyd's provided.
They want the insurer to contribute to a billion-dollar educational fund that would help black Americans to trace their ancestry. They are also demanding up to $1 million each in personal compensation. If their test case is successful, it could open the floodgates for similar lawsuits from any of the estimated 30 million Americans whose forefathers were slaves.
The lawsuit is not aimed exclusively at Lloyd's: among the other defendants is the US Government, a one-time champion of slavery.
Proving that Lloyd's is accountable for the evils of slavery, especially so long after those tragic events, will be extraordinarily difficult.
It will be necessary to establish in court that descendants of slaves are also 'victims'; that the commercial entities which profited from slavery should be punished even though they were not acting illegally at the time; and whether, anyway, they still exist in any meaningful form.
Even if Lloyd's as an institution was judged to be liable, many of its 'members' - the firms and private investors whose money provides insurance cover - would probably argue that they had no involvement in the insurance market three centuries ago
Lloyd's itself is expected to deny any legal responsibility for slavery and fight the case fiercely, arguing that the claim itself is outlandish even by the standards of America's 'compensation culture'.
A Lloyd's spokeswoman declined to comment yesterday, but pointed out that the insurer had faced slavery lawsuits before, which the courts had rejected. But the plaintiffs believe that this time it will be different because they are alleging the crime of genocide, which is specifically provided for under American law.
Some earlier claims were also rejected on the grounds that the claimants could not provide incontrovertible proof as to when and by whom their ancestors had been enslaved. But the plaintiffs in tomorrow's case against Lloyd's will claim that new DNA testing techniques allow them to trace their ancestry to specific African tribes and, by extension, to identifiable slave-trafficking episodes.
In Fagan, they have enlisted a lawyer who is already unpopular in a number of City boardrooms. As well as famously acting for Holocaust victims, he represents thousands of South Africans who are suing British, European and American firms for allegedly exploiting black workers under the apartheid regime. Among the British blue-chip companies being sued are Barclays Bank and BP. All deny the claims.
'Companies usually resort to the argument that terrible things happened a long time ago, but now it's all in the past,' Fagan said yesterday. 'For the descendants of slaves, however, it is not all in the past. Our case is that Lloyd's of London was heavily involved, and we believe the US court will support us.'
For Lloyd's sake, Fagan had better be wrong. Earthquakes, terror attacks and environmental accidents have forced it to cough up billions in the past. But slavery compensation might be a financial disaster to eclipse any of those.
----------------------------------------
The big hurdle for the reperations seakers is still
It will be necessary to establish in court that descendants of slaves are also 'victims'; that the commercial entities which profited from slavery should be punished even though they were not acting illegally at the time; and whether, anyway, they still exist in any meaningful form.
At least these people aren't greedy. They only want a million a piece in compensation. :rolleyes:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
Centuries after Africans were beaten, chained and transported in their millions across the Atlantic, Britain's role in the slave trade is set to resurface in sensational fashion in a New York courtroom.
Descendants of black American slaves are preparing a multi-billion dollar action against Lloyd's of London, the best-known name in world insurance, for allegedly financing the trading fleets that uprooted them from their homelands and condemned them to generations of slavery in the New World.
The dramatic claim, to be filed tomorrow, is the latest in which 'UK plc' is being forced to confront allegations of a murky past. In recent years a host of British companies have been sued for allegedly collaborating with South Africa's racist apartheid regime.
The claim against Lloyd's could prove far more damaging. Black leaders are using DNA technology to link themselves with recorded slave ships and have enlisted Edward Fagan, the feared New York lawyer who extracted huge Nazi gold settlements from German and Swiss companies, to lead the case.
Lloyd's is expected to deny it is liable for slavery, but news of the case will cause consternation within its gleaming steel-and-glass headquarters in the City of London, where the insurance giant is tipped to make profits of £1 billion this year.
The sharp-suited brokers and cutting-edge technology that now characterise Lloyd's are only the latest incarnation in a long and controversial history. It was founded by Edward Lloyd in a London coffee shop in 1688 to provide cover for merchants whose ships were regularly lost at sea. Just like today, it was the centre of the insurance and shipping world in the 1700s and early 1800s, when many shipowners were making vast fortunes by shipping slaves from Africa to America and Britain's colonies in the Caribbean.
Before slavery was abolished in the British Empire in the 1830s, and three decades later in the United States, more than 10 million people are thought to have been sold to slave traffickers at west African ports before being herded on to boats for the long voyage to America. The ships often stopped for supplies at Bristol, London or Liverpool. The slaves suffered severe mistreatment, malnutrition and overcrowding on the way, with around 20 percent dying at sea; on arrival in America, those who had survived the journey were permanently separated from their families and friends and sold.
Deadria Farmer-Paellman, one of the plaintiffs in the case, has traced her ancestors to the Mende people of Sierra Leone. She told The Observer: 'African Americans today are also the victims of genocide: our ethnic and national groups were destroyed by slavery. This is illegal under US and international law. We still do not know anything about who we are.
'We were referred to as cargo on shipping records, not by our names, nationality or ethnic groups, as other immigrants into America were. This, as well as all the murder and mistreatment our ancestors suffered, is the definition of genocide and Lloyd's of London aided and abetted it.'
Antoinette Harrell-Miller, another of the claimants, said: 'Like any other ethnic group living in America, I have the right to know who I am. Lloyd's of London and others must repair the damage they caused.'
Historical records identify around 30,000 'slaving' expeditions sailing between Africa and the Americas over 300 years, although it is not clear how many of these would have been insured at Lloyd's. But the plaintiffs, 10 black Americans who have traced their ancestors to specific slave-trading episodes, claim that many of these armadas could not have crossed the Atlantic without the financial safety net that Lloyd's provided.
They want the insurer to contribute to a billion-dollar educational fund that would help black Americans to trace their ancestry. They are also demanding up to $1 million each in personal compensation. If their test case is successful, it could open the floodgates for similar lawsuits from any of the estimated 30 million Americans whose forefathers were slaves.
The lawsuit is not aimed exclusively at Lloyd's: among the other defendants is the US Government, a one-time champion of slavery.
Proving that Lloyd's is accountable for the evils of slavery, especially so long after those tragic events, will be extraordinarily difficult.
It will be necessary to establish in court that descendants of slaves are also 'victims'; that the commercial entities which profited from slavery should be punished even though they were not acting illegally at the time; and whether, anyway, they still exist in any meaningful form.
Even if Lloyd's as an institution was judged to be liable, many of its 'members' - the firms and private investors whose money provides insurance cover - would probably argue that they had no involvement in the insurance market three centuries ago
Lloyd's itself is expected to deny any legal responsibility for slavery and fight the case fiercely, arguing that the claim itself is outlandish even by the standards of America's 'compensation culture'.
A Lloyd's spokeswoman declined to comment yesterday, but pointed out that the insurer had faced slavery lawsuits before, which the courts had rejected. But the plaintiffs believe that this time it will be different because they are alleging the crime of genocide, which is specifically provided for under American law.
Some earlier claims were also rejected on the grounds that the claimants could not provide incontrovertible proof as to when and by whom their ancestors had been enslaved. But the plaintiffs in tomorrow's case against Lloyd's will claim that new DNA testing techniques allow them to trace their ancestry to specific African tribes and, by extension, to identifiable slave-trafficking episodes.
In Fagan, they have enlisted a lawyer who is already unpopular in a number of City boardrooms. As well as famously acting for Holocaust victims, he represents thousands of South Africans who are suing British, European and American firms for allegedly exploiting black workers under the apartheid regime. Among the British blue-chip companies being sued are Barclays Bank and BP. All deny the claims.
'Companies usually resort to the argument that terrible things happened a long time ago, but now it's all in the past,' Fagan said yesterday. 'For the descendants of slaves, however, it is not all in the past. Our case is that Lloyd's of London was heavily involved, and we believe the US court will support us.'
For Lloyd's sake, Fagan had better be wrong. Earthquakes, terror attacks and environmental accidents have forced it to cough up billions in the past. But slavery compensation might be a financial disaster to eclipse any of those.
----------------------------------------
The big hurdle for the reperations seakers is still
It will be necessary to establish in court that descendants of slaves are also 'victims'; that the commercial entities which profited from slavery should be punished even though they were not acting illegally at the time; and whether, anyway, they still exist in any meaningful form.
At least these people aren't greedy. They only want a million a piece in compensation. :rolleyes:
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
2strokebloke
03-29-2004, 02:50 PM
Heard about it before. I don't see how you can hold people accountable for something somebody they didn't even know did over 100 years ago. Sounds rather stupid to me.
TexasF355F1
03-29-2004, 04:12 PM
Shit! Not this horse-crap again. If they get a million dollars each, then how about all the decendents of Jews, and others that killed in concentration camps. Stupid fucking mother fuckers. Shit. Sorry for the cursing, that's really all I can think of saying when I read this crap.
Atomis27
03-29-2004, 04:36 PM
Well, I can think of other things to say, but I don't feel like getting banned today.
justacruiser
03-29-2004, 05:06 PM
Just another dumbassed lawsuit to try and get free money. That's all it is. It happend WELL over 100 years ago, remember folks, actual slave shipping to the US ended around 1820 or so as a compromise between the north and south, so it's actually closer to 200 years since the last slave was actually shipped off to America from Africa. GIVE-IT-A-REST! There's a lot more to concentrate on than how badly your however-many greats grandfather suffered in a ship.
jon@af
03-29-2004, 11:40 PM
I'm sorry, but why the hell do we owe them money? Yes, what happened with slavery and such was a horrible thing, but that cannot be changed now, and paying enormous amounts of money per person is completely ridiculous. Money is not that answer, it's not dwelling on something that has long since passed and to quit bitching. I don't owe anybody shit, and that's exactly what they are going to see so long as they keep complaining that they are "owed" money.
Toksin
03-30-2004, 03:17 AM
Sounds like NZ's land claim bullshit.
So, their ancestors were taken from Sierra Leone, and now the descendants are living in the USA with high modern standards of living? While Sierra Leone is a wartorn shithole? And they want compensation?
Cha. Makes sense.
GET. OVER. IT.
So, their ancestors were taken from Sierra Leone, and now the descendants are living in the USA with high modern standards of living? While Sierra Leone is a wartorn shithole? And they want compensation?
Cha. Makes sense.
GET. OVER. IT.
carrrnuttt
03-30-2004, 03:41 AM
I think this is one of the only threads I have seen, since I have been browsing the political forum, where everybody seems to be in agreement...
..it is a stupid lawsuit.
..it is a stupid lawsuit.
TexasF355F1
03-30-2004, 11:25 AM
I think this is one of the only threads I have seen, since I have been browsing the political forum, where everybody seems to be in agreement...
..it is a stupid lawsuit.
Yes, it's strange. But it happens now and again.
..it is a stupid lawsuit.
Yes, it's strange. But it happens now and again.
taranaki
03-31-2004, 12:04 AM
I'm going to sue the Germans,they bombed my granny out of London.
2strokebloke
03-31-2004, 12:22 AM
you must suffer deep emotional agony, Taranaki. I'm sure if the Germans hadn't bombed your granny, you'd be millionaire, sue them for the fortune you never made because of your grandma.
Nevermind. Nobody would care, your grandma was niether jewish or a slave.
Nevermind. Nobody would care, your grandma was niether jewish or a slave.
Toksin
03-31-2004, 05:45 AM
I'm suing the Germans too, my grandfather was a POW!!!
Okay so he escaped but I'm still emotionally scarred
Okay so he escaped but I'm still emotionally scarred
zebrathree
03-31-2004, 07:59 AM
I'm sueing Dave.
I'll find a reason closer to the court date.
On topic:
Llyods underwrote a lot of things. They just dole out the money, they aren't interested in how its spent as long as it and the interest is paid back.
Its the way I operate too. Its underwriting for fucks sake.
I'll find a reason closer to the court date.
On topic:
Llyods underwrote a lot of things. They just dole out the money, they aren't interested in how its spent as long as it and the interest is paid back.
Its the way I operate too. Its underwriting for fucks sake.
T4 Primera
04-01-2004, 07:32 AM
I don't agree.
First of all, this is not a lawsuit against a nation or government. It is against a corporation, or group of corporations allegedly involved. So don't get all upset about personally paying out unless you are a shareholder. I find it suspicious that the article mentions the US Government as a co-defendant but fails to elaborate. Surely the suing of the US Government is a much bigger story than that of Lloyds.
Secondly, a corporation is an entity that is not limited in lifespan. So don't go off half-cocked about descendants not being responsible for the crimes of their ancestors. Just because the shareholders in a corporation die off and are replaced doesn't mean that the corporation gets the slate wiped clean with each passing generation.
Thirdly, if a corporation became rich and powerful based on the oppression and brutalisation of people, then that is wrongful enrichment.
Fourthly, this is not news - the case was initiated some time ago and is covered in the context of struggles between democracy and corporate power in the book mentioned below.
Finally, if you don't understand that this trial is part of a larger movement to bring corporate power back under democratic control - and not at all about race/slavery/whatever - I suggest you download the book "Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy" by Ted Nace and read it. At least then your opinions will be based on something more than a few paragraphs in a newspaper.
The book can be downloaded free of charge from here:
http://www.gangsofamerica.com/gangsofamerica.pdf
First of all, this is not a lawsuit against a nation or government. It is against a corporation, or group of corporations allegedly involved. So don't get all upset about personally paying out unless you are a shareholder. I find it suspicious that the article mentions the US Government as a co-defendant but fails to elaborate. Surely the suing of the US Government is a much bigger story than that of Lloyds.
Secondly, a corporation is an entity that is not limited in lifespan. So don't go off half-cocked about descendants not being responsible for the crimes of their ancestors. Just because the shareholders in a corporation die off and are replaced doesn't mean that the corporation gets the slate wiped clean with each passing generation.
Thirdly, if a corporation became rich and powerful based on the oppression and brutalisation of people, then that is wrongful enrichment.
Fourthly, this is not news - the case was initiated some time ago and is covered in the context of struggles between democracy and corporate power in the book mentioned below.
Finally, if you don't understand that this trial is part of a larger movement to bring corporate power back under democratic control - and not at all about race/slavery/whatever - I suggest you download the book "Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy" by Ted Nace and read it. At least then your opinions will be based on something more than a few paragraphs in a newspaper.
The book can be downloaded free of charge from here:
http://www.gangsofamerica.com/gangsofamerica.pdf
TexasF355F1
04-01-2004, 10:05 AM
Corporations allegedly involved? Ummmm....one problem with that. Slavery was in the 1800's and some before. There were no corporations during the time of slavery.
YogsVR4
04-01-2004, 10:10 AM
Secondly, a corporation is an entity that is not limited in lifespan. So don't go off half-cocked about descendants not being responsible for the crimes of their ancestors. Just because the shareholders in a corporation die off and are replaced doesn't mean that the corporation gets the slate wiped clean with each passing generation.
While a company can be held accountable for wrong doings. There are two important points. What is the statute of limitations and what law did they break? Slave trading is atrocious, but at the time it was not illegal.
Hold them accountable under any laws that were in effect at the time for countries they were operating in.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
While a company can be held accountable for wrong doings. There are two important points. What is the statute of limitations and what law did they break? Slave trading is atrocious, but at the time it was not illegal.
Hold them accountable under any laws that were in effect at the time for countries they were operating in.
Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)
T4 Primera
04-01-2004, 08:40 PM
Corporations allegedly involved? Ummmm....one problem with that. Slavery was in the 1800's and some before. There were no corporations during the time of slavery.
From the book in the link I posted earlier, on page 33:
TABLE 2.1
Formation of British Trading Companies
HOUSE OF TUDOR
Henry VII 1485−1509
Merchant Adventurers (1505)
Henry VIII 1530−1547
Edward VI 1547−1553
Mary Tudor 1553−1558
Russia Company (1553)
Elizabeth 1558−1603
Spanish Company (1577)
Eastland Company (1579)
Turkey Company (1581)
Morocco Company (1588)
East India Company (1600)
HOUSE OF STUART
James I 1603−1625 Virginia Company (1606)
French Company (1609)
Charles I 1625−1649
Commonwealth and Protectorate 1649−1660
Charles II 1660−1685
Hudson’s Bay Company (1670)
Royal African Company (1672)
James II 1685−1688
William III and Mary II 1689−1702
Greenland Company (1693)
Anne 1702−1714
South Sea Company (1711)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...and that's only some of the British ones.....
.....and from page 59:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How the framers of the American system restrained corporate
power (1787–1850)
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied
corporations which dare already to challenge our government
to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson, 1816
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More people need to read this book! Go on - it's free!
http://www.gangsofamerica.com/gangsofamerica.pdf
From the book in the link I posted earlier, on page 33:
TABLE 2.1
Formation of British Trading Companies
HOUSE OF TUDOR
Henry VII 1485−1509
Merchant Adventurers (1505)
Henry VIII 1530−1547
Edward VI 1547−1553
Mary Tudor 1553−1558
Russia Company (1553)
Elizabeth 1558−1603
Spanish Company (1577)
Eastland Company (1579)
Turkey Company (1581)
Morocco Company (1588)
East India Company (1600)
HOUSE OF STUART
James I 1603−1625 Virginia Company (1606)
French Company (1609)
Charles I 1625−1649
Commonwealth and Protectorate 1649−1660
Charles II 1660−1685
Hudson’s Bay Company (1670)
Royal African Company (1672)
James II 1685−1688
William III and Mary II 1689−1702
Greenland Company (1693)
Anne 1702−1714
South Sea Company (1711)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
...and that's only some of the British ones.....
.....and from page 59:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How the framers of the American system restrained corporate
power (1787–1850)
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied
corporations which dare already to challenge our government
to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
Thomas Jefferson, 1816
----------------------------------------------------------------------
More people need to read this book! Go on - it's free!
http://www.gangsofamerica.com/gangsofamerica.pdf
T4 Primera
04-01-2004, 09:14 PM
While a company can be held accountable for wrong doings. There are two important points. What is the statute of limitations and what law did they break? Slave trading is atrocious, but at the time it was not illegal.
Hold them accountable under any laws that were in effect at the time for countries they were operating in.
Those are good questions, and that is why they are going to court in search of the answers. Your post certainly holds more possiblity than the off-handed "get over it" opinions of many.
For some, not all, I translate this "get over it" attitude into a euphemism for "I don't really care enough about this particular subject to expend the time and energy required to have an informed opinion". Hence they resort to such tactics as oversimplifying things, paraphrasing the situation into a more familiar or provoking frame of reference or just plain guessing stuff and asserting it as fact.
What the court actually finds, and whether it can be effectively enforced is only part of the story. Regardless of the outcome, the case will go some way to increasing awareness of corporate power and democracy struggles - which is the aim of a larger worldwide movement.
The larger movement includes, but is not restricted to, the protests on GATT, WTO, IMF/World Bank, third world debt, sweatshop and child labour practices, environmental disasters like the Exxon Valdez, health and safety standards, minimum wage standards etc. Similar movements in the past have failed because of narrowly targeted focus. What makes the movement today different is that they are taking a leaf from the corporate book and planting many seeds to chip away at corporate power rather than trying meet it head on.
Hold them accountable under any laws that were in effect at the time for countries they were operating in.
Those are good questions, and that is why they are going to court in search of the answers. Your post certainly holds more possiblity than the off-handed "get over it" opinions of many.
For some, not all, I translate this "get over it" attitude into a euphemism for "I don't really care enough about this particular subject to expend the time and energy required to have an informed opinion". Hence they resort to such tactics as oversimplifying things, paraphrasing the situation into a more familiar or provoking frame of reference or just plain guessing stuff and asserting it as fact.
What the court actually finds, and whether it can be effectively enforced is only part of the story. Regardless of the outcome, the case will go some way to increasing awareness of corporate power and democracy struggles - which is the aim of a larger worldwide movement.
The larger movement includes, but is not restricted to, the protests on GATT, WTO, IMF/World Bank, third world debt, sweatshop and child labour practices, environmental disasters like the Exxon Valdez, health and safety standards, minimum wage standards etc. Similar movements in the past have failed because of narrowly targeted focus. What makes the movement today different is that they are taking a leaf from the corporate book and planting many seeds to chip away at corporate power rather than trying meet it head on.
2strokebloke
04-01-2004, 09:39 PM
secondly, a corporation is an entity that is not limited in lifespan. So don't go off half-cocked about descendants not being responsible for the crimes of their ancestors.
I disagree. If my great grandmother's murderer was never brought to justice, should I be able to sue his (the murderers) descendants because of this?
Should Jews sue today's current VW, for being deeply involved with the Nazis more than six decades ago? No, that's rediculous.
So what makes it fair to punish people for something they were not involved in?
I can see from the standpoint that the company profited off of something that is wrong, but at the same time, when they made these profits, it wasn't illegal, by the law they weren't doing anything wrong.
Hell, if we could sue people for violating laws that didn't exist when they commited those crimes, everybody would be a millionaire. So yes, I'm going to take the get over stance. Everybody wants to be a millionaire. Life isn't fair, get over it. I find it saddening, that these people's ancestors had been exploited during their lifetimes, but now well over a century after being dead, people are still finding ways to wring some more usefullness out of them. That's just sick. :2cents:
I disagree. If my great grandmother's murderer was never brought to justice, should I be able to sue his (the murderers) descendants because of this?
Should Jews sue today's current VW, for being deeply involved with the Nazis more than six decades ago? No, that's rediculous.
So what makes it fair to punish people for something they were not involved in?
I can see from the standpoint that the company profited off of something that is wrong, but at the same time, when they made these profits, it wasn't illegal, by the law they weren't doing anything wrong.
Hell, if we could sue people for violating laws that didn't exist when they commited those crimes, everybody would be a millionaire. So yes, I'm going to take the get over stance. Everybody wants to be a millionaire. Life isn't fair, get over it. I find it saddening, that these people's ancestors had been exploited during their lifetimes, but now well over a century after being dead, people are still finding ways to wring some more usefullness out of them. That's just sick. :2cents:
T4 Primera
04-01-2004, 10:20 PM
I disagree. If my great grandmother's murderer was never brought to justice, should I be able to sue his (the murderers) descendants because of this?
Should Jews sue today's current VW, for being deeply involved with the Nazis more than six decades ago? No, that's rediculous.
So what makes it fair to punish people for something they were not involved in?
I can see from the standpoint that the company profited off of something that is wrong, but at the same time, when they made these profits, it wasn't illegal, by the law they weren't doing anything wrong.
Hell, if we could sue people for violating laws that didn't exist when they commited those crimes, everybody would be a millionaire. So yes, I'm going to take the get over stance. Everybody wants to be a millionaire. Life isn't fair, get over it. I find it saddening, that these people's ancestors had been exploited during their lifetimes, but now well over a century after being dead, people are still finding ways to wring some more usefullness out of them. That's just sick. :2cents:
You continue to confuse the corporation as an entity with the natural human being as an entity. Let me try to clarify.
If your Great Grandmas murderer was never brought to justice and he is dead then there is nothing to be done. He was a physical person with a limited lifespan. But lets say he stole her fortune and invested it and that investment was still largely intact as a package. Who would you say has a right to that wealth - her descendants? or her murderer's?
If VW could be shown to have 1) been implicit in enabling crimes against humanity and 2) have benefitted financially from this practice, then they can be sued. This is because the wealth gained from such practices is essentially blood money. Would you argue the same standpoint with regard to Nazi fortunes locked away in Swiss bank accounts - that it was long ago and that money is now ok for the decendants of the War criminals to have?
The fundamental difference is in who pays. A corporation is a paperwork person - not a real person. It is this virtual entity that pays. The only real people that lose money are possibly the shareholders but that loss is limited to the amount of their shares. That is what limited liability means - the shareholders are not liable for the actions of the corperation.
So lets say that the court orders a payout. The company pays out or goes bankrupt - whatever - the shareholders may lose their shares or some portion of their value, but they are not held responsible for the actions of the corporations. That is the trade off they made when they bought shares in the company - they put their money at risk and in return are held indemnable beyond the value of their shareholding.
Remember, a corporation has no inherent conscience beyond that which is externally forced upon it. Even the people in control of it are mandated to make profits - not to make moral or ethical decisions beyond those necessary for the furthering of profits. Just look what happened to Henry Ford - he wanted to use re-invest corporate profit into more capacity to create jobs for the people and share the wealth - suffice to say that he lost control of the company at that point.
I think it is entirely appropriate that any "entity" during it's lifespan be held accountable for it's actions whether a real person or a virtual financial construct. Why should a virtual entity be immune to prosecution during it's lifespan when a real person is not.
Maybe this will get peoiple to look more closely at their sharemarket investment beyond the bare-bones profit. The past conduct of a corporation could then be considered as a factor of risk in the investment should a lawsuit ensue.
Indeed, there exists nowadays packages of investments which have been screened for good corporate conduct. These are for investors who accept that a while a company might be slightly less competitive because it refuses to use the dirty tricks, they are not unwittingly funding the forced displacement of some amazonian tribe in the way of a forestry operation or mine.
As for Lloyd's, they made money directly from the slave trade. It's blood money. It was wrong. Whether it was legal is for the courts to decide.
It's sad to think that things may be both wrong and legal at the same time. However, it is cases such as this which continually test the relevance and fairness of legal systems worldwide.
Should Jews sue today's current VW, for being deeply involved with the Nazis more than six decades ago? No, that's rediculous.
So what makes it fair to punish people for something they were not involved in?
I can see from the standpoint that the company profited off of something that is wrong, but at the same time, when they made these profits, it wasn't illegal, by the law they weren't doing anything wrong.
Hell, if we could sue people for violating laws that didn't exist when they commited those crimes, everybody would be a millionaire. So yes, I'm going to take the get over stance. Everybody wants to be a millionaire. Life isn't fair, get over it. I find it saddening, that these people's ancestors had been exploited during their lifetimes, but now well over a century after being dead, people are still finding ways to wring some more usefullness out of them. That's just sick. :2cents:
You continue to confuse the corporation as an entity with the natural human being as an entity. Let me try to clarify.
If your Great Grandmas murderer was never brought to justice and he is dead then there is nothing to be done. He was a physical person with a limited lifespan. But lets say he stole her fortune and invested it and that investment was still largely intact as a package. Who would you say has a right to that wealth - her descendants? or her murderer's?
If VW could be shown to have 1) been implicit in enabling crimes against humanity and 2) have benefitted financially from this practice, then they can be sued. This is because the wealth gained from such practices is essentially blood money. Would you argue the same standpoint with regard to Nazi fortunes locked away in Swiss bank accounts - that it was long ago and that money is now ok for the decendants of the War criminals to have?
The fundamental difference is in who pays. A corporation is a paperwork person - not a real person. It is this virtual entity that pays. The only real people that lose money are possibly the shareholders but that loss is limited to the amount of their shares. That is what limited liability means - the shareholders are not liable for the actions of the corperation.
So lets say that the court orders a payout. The company pays out or goes bankrupt - whatever - the shareholders may lose their shares or some portion of their value, but they are not held responsible for the actions of the corporations. That is the trade off they made when they bought shares in the company - they put their money at risk and in return are held indemnable beyond the value of their shareholding.
Remember, a corporation has no inherent conscience beyond that which is externally forced upon it. Even the people in control of it are mandated to make profits - not to make moral or ethical decisions beyond those necessary for the furthering of profits. Just look what happened to Henry Ford - he wanted to use re-invest corporate profit into more capacity to create jobs for the people and share the wealth - suffice to say that he lost control of the company at that point.
I think it is entirely appropriate that any "entity" during it's lifespan be held accountable for it's actions whether a real person or a virtual financial construct. Why should a virtual entity be immune to prosecution during it's lifespan when a real person is not.
Maybe this will get peoiple to look more closely at their sharemarket investment beyond the bare-bones profit. The past conduct of a corporation could then be considered as a factor of risk in the investment should a lawsuit ensue.
Indeed, there exists nowadays packages of investments which have been screened for good corporate conduct. These are for investors who accept that a while a company might be slightly less competitive because it refuses to use the dirty tricks, they are not unwittingly funding the forced displacement of some amazonian tribe in the way of a forestry operation or mine.
As for Lloyd's, they made money directly from the slave trade. It's blood money. It was wrong. Whether it was legal is for the courts to decide.
It's sad to think that things may be both wrong and legal at the same time. However, it is cases such as this which continually test the relevance and fairness of legal systems worldwide.
TexasF355F1
04-02-2004, 12:53 AM
Okay, my mistake. I do feel pretty stupid with my comment now. I still feel the way I feel though. As far as reading that though, I would never get around to reading it and don't have a huge interest in reading it.
T4 Primera
04-02-2004, 01:44 AM
As far as reading that though, I would never get around to reading it and don't have a huge interest in reading it.
Fair enough - life is short (unless you are a corporation in which case it is unlimited). :)
Fair enough - life is short (unless you are a corporation in which case it is unlimited). :)
2strokebloke
04-02-2004, 02:02 PM
T4, you still don't seem to be able to grasp that legally they did nothing wrong when they did this. That means that they made their money "fair and square" by the rules of the day.
By today's standards and laws what they did is horrible, but the fact remains that when they made that money, they made it fairly. That money is their money, they earned it.
The actual profits that they made hundreds of years ago, probably don't exist anymore, they're gone!
This case is stupid. So what if they win?, the money goes from a greedy company that did nothing wrong at the time they did it, and into the hands of greedy people and their greedy lawyers. Sound like alot is going to be accomplished. :)
By today's standards and laws what they did is horrible, but the fact remains that when they made that money, they made it fairly. That money is their money, they earned it.
The actual profits that they made hundreds of years ago, probably don't exist anymore, they're gone!
This case is stupid. So what if they win?, the money goes from a greedy company that did nothing wrong at the time they did it, and into the hands of greedy people and their greedy lawyers. Sound like alot is going to be accomplished. :)
T4 Primera
04-02-2004, 03:50 PM
When legal and right are 2 different things, it's time to take stock. The rules of the day are made by those who hold the power of the day.
I'm sure many of the things that the Nazis did were also "legal" in that they made their own rules as required - states of emergency and martial law cover alot.
Personally, I don't imagine that the plaintiff is as concerned about winning the case as they are about saying to the world:
"This is the history of these companies and the activities upon which they built their foundations. These are the things that companies are capable of if they get powerful enough."
The statement is as relevant to todays world as it ever was. Witness the influence that defence contractors, oil companies and media conglomerates have over society.
Regardless of the outcome, each case tests both the integrity and the interpretation of law against the values of society. This is how law evolves. If it doesn't evolve, the difference between legality and social values grows too large and results in civil unrest.
Call it a legal tune-up.
I'm sure many of the things that the Nazis did were also "legal" in that they made their own rules as required - states of emergency and martial law cover alot.
Personally, I don't imagine that the plaintiff is as concerned about winning the case as they are about saying to the world:
"This is the history of these companies and the activities upon which they built their foundations. These are the things that companies are capable of if they get powerful enough."
The statement is as relevant to todays world as it ever was. Witness the influence that defence contractors, oil companies and media conglomerates have over society.
Regardless of the outcome, each case tests both the integrity and the interpretation of law against the values of society. This is how law evolves. If it doesn't evolve, the difference between legality and social values grows too large and results in civil unrest.
Call it a legal tune-up.
2strokebloke
04-02-2004, 04:10 PM
So, we should sue Ford for selling our grandparents a model T that came without dual airbags, as that violates today's current laws - and my granparents could easily have been injured or killed because of Fords lack of respect for safety in 1920. And they profited by not equipping their cars as such.
And I swear I'd due this, not because I want a million dollars (but that's what I'm asking for) but because... why? Never mind, it is because I want a million dollars. :) If you believe that they sue, just to make a point about something, then you probably also believe GWB invaded Iraq, because he wanted to save people from Saddam, because Saddam is a big meany. Nobody is going to waste this much time and money, just to try and get a message across.
I find the whole deal pretty silly.
And I swear I'd due this, not because I want a million dollars (but that's what I'm asking for) but because... why? Never mind, it is because I want a million dollars. :) If you believe that they sue, just to make a point about something, then you probably also believe GWB invaded Iraq, because he wanted to save people from Saddam, because Saddam is a big meany. Nobody is going to waste this much time and money, just to try and get a message across.
I find the whole deal pretty silly.
T4 Primera
04-02-2004, 04:46 PM
So, we should sue Ford for selling our grandparents a model T that came without dual airbags, as that violates today's current laws - and my granparents could easily have been injured or killed because of Fords lack of respect for safety in 1920. And they profited by not equipping their cars as such.
And I swear I'd due this, not because I want a million dollars (but that's what I'm asking for) but because... why? Never mind, it is because I want a million dollars. :) If you believe that they sue, just to make a point about something, then you probably also believe GWB invaded Iraq, because he wanted to save people from Saddam, because Saddam is a big meany. Nobody is going to waste this much time and money, just to try and get a message across.
I find the whole deal pretty silly.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that no-one that thinks the way you do would make such a stand? No? - then tell me why some people such as doctors and highly trained proffessionals dedicate their lives to help the suffering in the hell-holes of the world when they could easily live in the lap of luxury doing cosmetic surgery and corporate law.
Do you actually know what the prevailing laws, contracts and corporate charters prevailing at the time contained? You speak as if you have an intimate knowledge of the prevailing laws at the time slavery was big business.
If you do, enlighten me, provide a link to the reference material, because I don't know.
If the case is so cut and dry then it will be dismissed at a hearing before it even gets to court. If it does get to court then that means that there is some doubt and hopefully these will be resolved during the case.
BTW, when Henry Ford announced his intention to use Ford Motor Company money to build more factories for the purpose of creating jobs and improving the lives of as many people as possible - his shareholders took him to court and prevented him from doing so. The message to Henry from the Michigan Supreme Courtwas that his job was to make money for the shareholders - not to benefit mankind.
And I swear I'd due this, not because I want a million dollars (but that's what I'm asking for) but because... why? Never mind, it is because I want a million dollars. :) If you believe that they sue, just to make a point about something, then you probably also believe GWB invaded Iraq, because he wanted to save people from Saddam, because Saddam is a big meany. Nobody is going to waste this much time and money, just to try and get a message across.
I find the whole deal pretty silly.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that no-one that thinks the way you do would make such a stand? No? - then tell me why some people such as doctors and highly trained proffessionals dedicate their lives to help the suffering in the hell-holes of the world when they could easily live in the lap of luxury doing cosmetic surgery and corporate law.
Do you actually know what the prevailing laws, contracts and corporate charters prevailing at the time contained? You speak as if you have an intimate knowledge of the prevailing laws at the time slavery was big business.
If you do, enlighten me, provide a link to the reference material, because I don't know.
If the case is so cut and dry then it will be dismissed at a hearing before it even gets to court. If it does get to court then that means that there is some doubt and hopefully these will be resolved during the case.
BTW, when Henry Ford announced his intention to use Ford Motor Company money to build more factories for the purpose of creating jobs and improving the lives of as many people as possible - his shareholders took him to court and prevented him from doing so. The message to Henry from the Michigan Supreme Courtwas that his job was to make money for the shareholders - not to benefit mankind.
2strokebloke
04-02-2004, 05:39 PM
If somebody is going to take their time & their money to say something, they're going to do it about something that is relevant today, such as aids in Africa, or world hunger.
The slave trade, as they are trying to make money from it ended more than 150 years ago. If they wanted to make a statement about slavery, and weren't in it just to make money, then they'd probably have targetted people in Mauritania - who practiced slave ownership up until only about three decades ago.
Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with slavery laws outside of the U.S. All I know is that England had abolished slavery more than a decade before the United States, and that they had outlawed involvement with the slave trade only a couple years after Lloyds had been founded.
I do not believe that Lloyds had participated with the slave traders after it became illegal, had they, they probably would've gotten in trouble, three hundred years ago.
They are also forgetting (as so many choose to do) that these companies were buying (many times) their slaves from black africans, of rival tribes... of course you can't sue a tribe from a third world country, because you won't get a million dollars from them, and chances are, that members of your tribe also captured members of a rival tribe, and sold them into slavery as well. At his point things get weird, because you're suing a company for financing a company that sold slaves, which they bought from people who might have been your own ancestors, but let's not make it that complicated. Of course that's not how it was always done, sometime the leaders would simply trade their own subjects for goods. Slave traders had tried to simply capture people to sell, but they found it was easier to just have the natives sell eachother to them.
The slave trade, as they are trying to make money from it ended more than 150 years ago. If they wanted to make a statement about slavery, and weren't in it just to make money, then they'd probably have targetted people in Mauritania - who practiced slave ownership up until only about three decades ago.
Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with slavery laws outside of the U.S. All I know is that England had abolished slavery more than a decade before the United States, and that they had outlawed involvement with the slave trade only a couple years after Lloyds had been founded.
I do not believe that Lloyds had participated with the slave traders after it became illegal, had they, they probably would've gotten in trouble, three hundred years ago.
They are also forgetting (as so many choose to do) that these companies were buying (many times) their slaves from black africans, of rival tribes... of course you can't sue a tribe from a third world country, because you won't get a million dollars from them, and chances are, that members of your tribe also captured members of a rival tribe, and sold them into slavery as well. At his point things get weird, because you're suing a company for financing a company that sold slaves, which they bought from people who might have been your own ancestors, but let's not make it that complicated. Of course that's not how it was always done, sometime the leaders would simply trade their own subjects for goods. Slave traders had tried to simply capture people to sell, but they found it was easier to just have the natives sell eachother to them.
T4 Primera
04-02-2004, 08:27 PM
If somebody is going to take their time & their money to say something, they're going to do it about something that is relevant today, such as aids in Africa, or world hunger.The relevance of this case is that it sends a message that an entity cannot expect to outlive responsibility for it's actions.
The relevance is that when slavery ended in 1865 Congress passed a law allowing 40 acres of land to freed slaves to give them the means by which to build a life. One month later that bill was vetoed by President Andrew Jonhnson and remains so to this day. Representative John Conyers from Michigan has tied unsuccessfully for well over a decade to propose $8m be set aside for the study of the effects of slavery and come up with a formula for reparations.
The relevance is that Congress has ignored the issue for nearly 150 years and someone tired of waiting decided to explore other avenues.
The relevance is that people trying to trace their ancestry are continually obstructed access to the necessary information and documents held in corporate records.
The relevance is that people trying to research the amount of money that was made by these companies directly from slave trade profits are similarly obstructed from access to these records.
The slave trade, as they are trying to make money from it ended more than 150 years ago. If they wanted to make a statement about slavery, and weren't in it just to make money, then they'd probably have targetted people in Mauritania - who practiced slave ownership up until only about three decades ago.
The actual lawsuit does not specify a dollar amount beyond "that to be determined by the court". Where that original piece at the start of the thread gets it's 1 million per person from is pure fiction.
Here is a link to the original lawsuit document:
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/slavery/fpllmnflt032602cmp.pdf
They may very well have a desire ensure justice in Mauritania, but do they have the legal standing to initiate something there?
Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with slavery laws outside of the U.S. All I know is that England had abolished slavery more than a decade before the United States, and that they had outlawed involvement with the slave trade only a couple years after Lloyds had been founded.
I do not believe that Lloyds had participated with the slave traders after it became illegal, had they, they probably would've gotten in trouble, three hundred years ago.
Lloyds became a company in 1771 although it had been a society since 1688. The British enacted the "Abolition of the Slave Trade Act" in 1807 but it continued anyway. Any British captain caught with slaves on board was fined $100 per slave. Needless to say many were thrown overboard when the threat of imminent capture loomed. In 1827 they redefined slave trading as piracy thus being punishable by death. In 1833 they passed an act to abolish slavery in all British colonies and overseas assets.
Without access to the relevant documents, how can anyone say what they did and did not do and when. This is one of the things that a court case will reveal - assuming the documents still exist or existed in the first place. It's the only way to find out short of all the defendants voluntarily opening up the books.
Lloyds was added as a co-defendant later on in the piece, which indicates that a discovery of some sort had been made. They are not theprincipal defendant in this case as the original article in this thread would have us believe.
They are also forgetting (as so many choose to do) that these companies were buying (many times) their slaves from black africans, of rival tribes... of course you can't sue a tribe from a third world country, because you won't get a million dollars from them, and chances are, that members of your tribe also captured members of a rival tribe, and sold them into slavery as well. At his point things get weird, because you're suing a company for financing a company that sold slaves, which they bought from people who might have been your own ancestors, but let's not make it that complicated. Of course that's not how it was always done, sometime the leaders would simply trade their own subjects for goods. Slave traders had tried to simply capture people to sell, but they found it was easier to just have the natives sell eachother to them.
The thing is, those individuals are long dead whereas the legal entities named as co-defendants are alive and well and flourishing. If the tribal members you mention enjoyed the benefits of unlimited lifespan the way corporations do, then perhaps you'd have a point.
The relevance is that when slavery ended in 1865 Congress passed a law allowing 40 acres of land to freed slaves to give them the means by which to build a life. One month later that bill was vetoed by President Andrew Jonhnson and remains so to this day. Representative John Conyers from Michigan has tied unsuccessfully for well over a decade to propose $8m be set aside for the study of the effects of slavery and come up with a formula for reparations.
The relevance is that Congress has ignored the issue for nearly 150 years and someone tired of waiting decided to explore other avenues.
The relevance is that people trying to trace their ancestry are continually obstructed access to the necessary information and documents held in corporate records.
The relevance is that people trying to research the amount of money that was made by these companies directly from slave trade profits are similarly obstructed from access to these records.
The slave trade, as they are trying to make money from it ended more than 150 years ago. If they wanted to make a statement about slavery, and weren't in it just to make money, then they'd probably have targetted people in Mauritania - who practiced slave ownership up until only about three decades ago.
The actual lawsuit does not specify a dollar amount beyond "that to be determined by the court". Where that original piece at the start of the thread gets it's 1 million per person from is pure fiction.
Here is a link to the original lawsuit document:
http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/slavery/fpllmnflt032602cmp.pdf
They may very well have a desire ensure justice in Mauritania, but do they have the legal standing to initiate something there?
Unfortunately, I am not very familiar with slavery laws outside of the U.S. All I know is that England had abolished slavery more than a decade before the United States, and that they had outlawed involvement with the slave trade only a couple years after Lloyds had been founded.
I do not believe that Lloyds had participated with the slave traders after it became illegal, had they, they probably would've gotten in trouble, three hundred years ago.
Lloyds became a company in 1771 although it had been a society since 1688. The British enacted the "Abolition of the Slave Trade Act" in 1807 but it continued anyway. Any British captain caught with slaves on board was fined $100 per slave. Needless to say many were thrown overboard when the threat of imminent capture loomed. In 1827 they redefined slave trading as piracy thus being punishable by death. In 1833 they passed an act to abolish slavery in all British colonies and overseas assets.
Without access to the relevant documents, how can anyone say what they did and did not do and when. This is one of the things that a court case will reveal - assuming the documents still exist or existed in the first place. It's the only way to find out short of all the defendants voluntarily opening up the books.
Lloyds was added as a co-defendant later on in the piece, which indicates that a discovery of some sort had been made. They are not theprincipal defendant in this case as the original article in this thread would have us believe.
They are also forgetting (as so many choose to do) that these companies were buying (many times) their slaves from black africans, of rival tribes... of course you can't sue a tribe from a third world country, because you won't get a million dollars from them, and chances are, that members of your tribe also captured members of a rival tribe, and sold them into slavery as well. At his point things get weird, because you're suing a company for financing a company that sold slaves, which they bought from people who might have been your own ancestors, but let's not make it that complicated. Of course that's not how it was always done, sometime the leaders would simply trade their own subjects for goods. Slave traders had tried to simply capture people to sell, but they found it was easier to just have the natives sell eachother to them.
The thing is, those individuals are long dead whereas the legal entities named as co-defendants are alive and well and flourishing. If the tribal members you mention enjoyed the benefits of unlimited lifespan the way corporations do, then perhaps you'd have a point.
2strokebloke
04-02-2004, 08:59 PM
True, people come and die, but the tribe is still the same tribe, it outlives it's individual members. So if we can hold present day owners of a company responsible for something they didn't do, then what's so far fetched about holding a tribe responsible? OH, I keep forgetting, they (unlike a large corporation) wouldn't be able to hand out money if they were taken to court.
T4 Primera
04-03-2004, 01:14 AM
True, people come and die, but the tribe is still the same tribe, it outlives it's individual members. So if we can hold present day owners of a company responsible for something they didn't do, then what's so far fetched about holding a tribe responsible? OH, I keep forgetting, they (unlike a large corporation) wouldn't be able to hand out money if they were taken to court.
The present day owners are not being held personally responsible. Neither would the present day tribesmen. It is the legal entity that is being charged. Just like if the tribesmen were being charged it would be the tribe as an entity and not a physical person.
The tribe as an institution might be judged guilty, issue an apology and make reparations with what assets the tribe as an institution may own. However the present day tribesmen would not be personally punished beyond that which is invested in the tribe as an institution. It is the same thing with the corporatrion as an institution or legal entity.
How would you prove the complicity of a tribe? Do you think that these people were likely to have left a papertrail? or signed contracts? or kept records? I'm not saying it didn't happen - just that proving it in court is not feasable.
So, you are saying that they are only suing the corporations because they are rich and that is dishonorable? Does that also mean that in order for the lawsuit to be based on honorable intentions - only the poor should be sued?
The charge is levelled against a legal entity - not a person, although I conceed that the present day shareholders may suffer financially.
However, I believe that if you invest in a company that has committed crimes in the past then it is part of the risk you take that the company might have to answer for it's actions.
For example, if you invested in an oil company that had caused an environmental disaster that hadn't been settled , you couldn't really complain that your shares devalued as a result of a court decision forcing the oil company to make reparations or remedies.
How else is a company to be held accountable for any adverse effects of it's actions? A corporation has only two inherent purposes - to profit and to grow. If the shareholders or investors do not provide a conscience indirectly, by evaluating the risk based on the conduct of the corporation, then the only other way to do it is by government regulation of it's activities. Add to that government prosecution where regulations are breached.
Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, having tired of waiting for Congress to resolve the issue, was inspired to file this lawsuit by the success of similar lawsuits against Volkswagen, Siemens, Deutsche Bank and Daimler Chrysler for Nazi-era slave labour.
If you were to publicly voice your opposition to any of those lawsuits, you would be labelled as anti-semetic before you could finish the sentence.
Lastly, addressing the time elapsed between crime and lawsuit, at which point in time did the slaves or their descendants find themselves sufficiently empowered to launch a legal challenge against their alledged perpetrators?
Having waited for almost 150 years for Congress to deliver the reparations which were halted by Presidential Veto, they finally find themselves sufficiently empowered to force the issue.
One more thing, the Plaintiff also consists of an entity, with any settlements to be directed into a humanitarian trust fund.
The present day owners are not being held personally responsible. Neither would the present day tribesmen. It is the legal entity that is being charged. Just like if the tribesmen were being charged it would be the tribe as an entity and not a physical person.
The tribe as an institution might be judged guilty, issue an apology and make reparations with what assets the tribe as an institution may own. However the present day tribesmen would not be personally punished beyond that which is invested in the tribe as an institution. It is the same thing with the corporatrion as an institution or legal entity.
How would you prove the complicity of a tribe? Do you think that these people were likely to have left a papertrail? or signed contracts? or kept records? I'm not saying it didn't happen - just that proving it in court is not feasable.
So, you are saying that they are only suing the corporations because they are rich and that is dishonorable? Does that also mean that in order for the lawsuit to be based on honorable intentions - only the poor should be sued?
The charge is levelled against a legal entity - not a person, although I conceed that the present day shareholders may suffer financially.
However, I believe that if you invest in a company that has committed crimes in the past then it is part of the risk you take that the company might have to answer for it's actions.
For example, if you invested in an oil company that had caused an environmental disaster that hadn't been settled , you couldn't really complain that your shares devalued as a result of a court decision forcing the oil company to make reparations or remedies.
How else is a company to be held accountable for any adverse effects of it's actions? A corporation has only two inherent purposes - to profit and to grow. If the shareholders or investors do not provide a conscience indirectly, by evaluating the risk based on the conduct of the corporation, then the only other way to do it is by government regulation of it's activities. Add to that government prosecution where regulations are breached.
Deadria Farmer-Paellmann, having tired of waiting for Congress to resolve the issue, was inspired to file this lawsuit by the success of similar lawsuits against Volkswagen, Siemens, Deutsche Bank and Daimler Chrysler for Nazi-era slave labour.
If you were to publicly voice your opposition to any of those lawsuits, you would be labelled as anti-semetic before you could finish the sentence.
Lastly, addressing the time elapsed between crime and lawsuit, at which point in time did the slaves or their descendants find themselves sufficiently empowered to launch a legal challenge against their alledged perpetrators?
Having waited for almost 150 years for Congress to deliver the reparations which were halted by Presidential Veto, they finally find themselves sufficiently empowered to force the issue.
One more thing, the Plaintiff also consists of an entity, with any settlements to be directed into a humanitarian trust fund.
ferret
04-05-2004, 09:27 AM
This Is just a question... ?
now, im irish. and the irish were the only ever white slaves the the slavery era of wich you speak (yess, coffin ships n all) we were shied over in huge numbers as slaves by Cromwell and those who came after him. We were forced In2 subsistance Agriculture, and in2 a monocultur by the british... which coused the fammine, more than a million dead, millions mre emigrated, couseing a downward spirall in our population with domed our nation to never be powerfull or significant on a world stage. (due to sheer lack of numbers, b4 the fammine the population of ireland was 8million, almost the same as briton at the time, now, after more than 150years...its 5million, whilr briton is 65million)
Now these are damages, and injustices which have been done onto the peple and nation of ireland, which are traceable. I ask you, does the irish government have a right to sue the british government for this damage??
What about south america and the spanish? Wat about every frigin injustice which has been done in history? Can the UN try the us goverment for stealing soux land?? after all, they are both entitys?? not people? NO ... this is a black civil rights movemen which is attemping to remain controvershial, and to prolong its own life.
now, im irish. and the irish were the only ever white slaves the the slavery era of wich you speak (yess, coffin ships n all) we were shied over in huge numbers as slaves by Cromwell and those who came after him. We were forced In2 subsistance Agriculture, and in2 a monocultur by the british... which coused the fammine, more than a million dead, millions mre emigrated, couseing a downward spirall in our population with domed our nation to never be powerfull or significant on a world stage. (due to sheer lack of numbers, b4 the fammine the population of ireland was 8million, almost the same as briton at the time, now, after more than 150years...its 5million, whilr briton is 65million)
Now these are damages, and injustices which have been done onto the peple and nation of ireland, which are traceable. I ask you, does the irish government have a right to sue the british government for this damage??
What about south america and the spanish? Wat about every frigin injustice which has been done in history? Can the UN try the us goverment for stealing soux land?? after all, they are both entitys?? not people? NO ... this is a black civil rights movemen which is attemping to remain controvershial, and to prolong its own life.
T4 Primera
04-05-2004, 05:16 PM
It seems it is both a question and an answer.
You are asking about lawsuits against governments, which is an altogether different proposition to corporations.
The Farmer-Paellmann lawsuit follows on precedents set by successful lawsuits against corporations involved in Nazi era slavery.
This lawsuit came about because Congress had not addressed the reparations awarded nearly 150 years ago which were blocked by a presidential veto. I.E. efforts with government have been a dead end.
That's not to say that a lawsuit can't be launched against a government. But what court has the authority to make judgement and the means to enforce it?
You are asking about lawsuits against governments, which is an altogether different proposition to corporations.
The Farmer-Paellmann lawsuit follows on precedents set by successful lawsuits against corporations involved in Nazi era slavery.
This lawsuit came about because Congress had not addressed the reparations awarded nearly 150 years ago which were blocked by a presidential veto. I.E. efforts with government have been a dead end.
That's not to say that a lawsuit can't be launched against a government. But what court has the authority to make judgement and the means to enforce it?
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025