Well, they weren't all "perfectly within the law." As it was illegal to participate in the slave trade in all English colonies after circa 1830s. And slavery was illegal in the northern U.S. States well before the Civil War (I'm sure you remember the Dred Scott case?) So, technically, these companies knowingly operated where slavery was both legal and illegal. They weren't unaware of what they were doing.

Well, quite fortunately (for a whole host of reasons) we were not an english colony at the time. It was indeed illegal in the North to own a slave. (which one can argue had very little to do with morality and more to do with economics) It, however, was not illegal to have anything to do with any an enterprise that was legally making use of slavery, i.e. purchasing slave-grown cotton, or insuring a ship. As a modern example, its illegal now in most states to engage in prostitution. In Nevada, it is not. So, should it be illegal for an insurance company based in Georgia to provide health insurance to the employees of a brothel? I don't think so.

And yes, I do remember the Dred Scott case. The court ruled that even after seven years in a "free" area that Scott was still a slave even within the free area.

I never said that there weren't some who objected to slavery then. I know there were. But, it wasn't a societally decided issue. It has been decided now.

Again, remember, slavery was illegal in various parts of the U.S. well before 1864 (i.e. Bloody Kansas).

Also, I must point out, that it is curious to me that no one seems to think that maybe these women - and the lawsuit in general - is trying to make a larger point.

I don't care about their larger point. I care about the law. And I don't care for people to abuse the courts in order to "make a point". If they want to make a point, they can take out some ads in the New York Times.

One: To remind us that much of the economic strength of these companies in the suit was achieved through slave labor

The truth of that statement is highly debatable. After so long, one has to wonder how tiny the percentage of their value might be the legacy of the slave trade.

Two: To remind us that African-Americans still face hurdles as a result of slavery (i.e. KKK, poverty, unemployment, etc.) [I hasten to add that many other groups deal with this, as well.]

I have to wonder at how much of those problems are actually the lingering results of slavery.

Three: That there are people who are very much alive today that can remember a time when life was much more difficult, and that we should honor and respect them. For they are harbingers of history, and to call them "dumb hos" as Chorabliss did above, is disgraceful

I'm sure there are. I'm sure they come in every race and ethnicity, too.

Four: To get a conversation like this going in the first place. We cannot expect one month a year to represent hundreds of years of history - for blacks OR whites. Slavery was a very real, lived experience, and to say that "Gee, whatever, its over now and that was, like, a long time ago" negates the enormous impact it had on the development of the U.S., the Civil Rights movement, and the significance of Colin Powell being able to occupy such a position of power.

I agree, it does have a significance. However, there has to be a time after which a society "lets go" of things. This suit is only going to stir up passions and make people angry. It won't solve anything.

And, btw, you can make snide fake quotes all you like, but my thoughts on this issue go far deeper than that.

Alright, obviously I could go on here.....but my main point is, critically think about what may be going on with this case, and maybe, just maybe, you won't be so quick to judge.

How do you know if I was "quick to judge"? I could just as easily say you're quick to judge in the opposite direction.

Okay - one more point....I, personally, believe repairations are not a viable answer. I believe that it is much more vital to inform the public of the impact of slavery on our society. That is not a "you don't/can't understand" statement, either. Until I really started studying historic era archaeology, I had no idea, either. But I am hard-pressed to come up with anything in our current society whose roots do not stem from our colonial and antebellum era activities. Whether "good" or "bad", to not understand it is the real crime, in my eyes. So take a moment and think about what is being said, rather than assuming.

I think the public is very much aware of the legacy of slavery. And there has to be a time after which our society stops flagellating itself over it and moves on to the future.

But, all that aside, even if I agreed with every assertion you made, this lawsuit is destructive and unreasonable. Nothing good will come of it but more strife.



If It Makes You Happy

Frankly, I don't know why anybody listens to actors about anything other than acting. Since when does the ability to fake emotions on cue like a sociopath make one an expert on anything?