this just seems insane to me. suing companies for "crimes" committed 140 years ago at a time when they were perfectly within the law to be doing what they were doing. i think its dangerous to apply modern moral standards to the past.
This is an absolute central issue. I couldn't agree more that there are powder-keg dangerous is looking back within the framework of current understanding and trying to legislate or mitigate any perceived "crimes and immorality" of the past.
edit: just to perfectly clear, i do not now, nor have i ever, supported the idea that slavery was a good or moral thing. but again, that's something we've decided now. back then, it was a raging topic of debate. i for one am certainly glad the practice of slavery was ended in the u.s.
Agree 100%.
This type of case has been much planned and talk about in the past several years, especially when countries like Japan have been forced to pay reparations for past war crimes. The key word there is crimes... at the time they were committing crimes.
I also find it interesting that as talks of reparation warm up that many of the targeted companies profited in indirect ways or because of rather standard business procedures. Companies such as Union Pacific, who "profited by transporting slave grown cotton". Other companies are targeted by being the insurance companies that ship owners would take policies out with to insure their cargoes, slaves in this case, but also were engaged to insure almost every trans-Atlantic cargoe.
Is this case about "healing" the country or going after deep pockets?
OCWIATJ Forever
