Wachovia's Ties to Slavery - Page 2

TheEpitome1920 · #16 06-03-2005, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hoosier
Sure, slavery helped some individuals and some companies accumulate wealth - some 150 years ago.

Is this wealth not passed down throughout the years?

Rudey · #17 06-03-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheEpitome1920
To apologize means recognizing that it did happen and that corporations that are still in existence profitted from it. So in a way it does affect people who were never enslaved or owned slaves.

The enslavement of Africans in the United States was/is a human rights issue that has never been fully addressed in the ways other crimes have. We continue to skirt around the issue because we are "so far removed" from it. Ignoring the fact this particular form of enslavement continues to affect American society.

Wachovia didn't profit from it. Again, a lot of the public corporations have shareholders which include Black Americans - part owners in these banks.

-Rudey

TheEpitome1920 · #18 06-03-2005, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
Wachovia didn't profit from it. Again, a lot of the public corporations have shareholders which include Black Americans - part owners in these banks.

-Rudey

Quote:

The bank said incomplete records make it impossible to know how many slaves were owned by either institution, but that specific transactional records show the Georgia bank owned at least 162 slaves and the Bank of Charleston accepted at least 529 slaves as collateral on mortgaged properties or loans.

They acknowledged that 2 of the banks they assumed did so they are accepting responsibility (for lack of a beter word).

I wonder how many Blacks folks will keep their shares?

Rudey · #19 06-03-2005, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheEpitome1920
They acknowledged that 2 of the banks they assumed did so they are accepting responsibility (for lack of a beter word).

I wonder how many Blacks folks will keep their shares?

Why was this divulged? Was it forced like the Chicago/JPMorgan event?

And I guarantee it will most. In fact quite a few of them don't control what shares they buy if they are in unions that invest pensions. Most probably won't care I'm guessing regardless since Wachovia is not that bank.

-Rudey

TheEpitome1920 · #20 06-03-2005, 01:49 PM

I'm not sure if they were forced to or if they just wanted to avoid any backlash.

Rudey · #21 06-03-2005, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheEpitome1920
I'm not sure if they were forced to or if they just wanted to avoid any backlash.

"decision came amid a welter of local and legislative initiatives aimed at requiring banks and other companies to investigate their pasts with regard to slavery."

Now, let me prod you for a bit. Why do you think Wachovia and JPMorgan, 2 large banks, were "pushed" to release this information?

-Rudey

TheEpitome1920 · #22 06-03-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
"decision came amid a welter of local and legislative initiatives aimed at requiring banks and other companies to investigate their pasts with regard to slavery."

Now, let me prod you for a bit. Why do you think Wachovia and JPMorgan, 2 large banks, were "pushed" to release this information?

-Rudey

Because members of our society are interested in this information.

Rudey · #23 06-03-2005, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheEpitome1920
Because members of our society are interested in this information.

Why not about other types of companies? So basically why are banks targeted for this and why are banks so high profile in the news?

-Rudey

TheEpitome1920 · #24 06-03-2005, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rudey
Why not about other types of companies? So basically why are banks targeted for this and why are banks so high profile in the news?

-Rudey

Oooh. I think other types of companies such as insurance companies have been targeted. I think Lloyd's in London was examined?? And there are studies on how some national monuments were built by slaves.

cashmoney · #25 06-03-2005, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheEpitome1920
I think it's important for corporations and America as a whole to realize that a lot (if not the all) of this country's wealth was created by slave labor.

This is true. If you look at some of the South's most wealthy families you'll see that on down the line they owned slaves. And if you look back far enough, you'll note that many corporations profited from the slaves. Maybe not directly all the time, but they still profited whether directly or indirectly.

But then again a lot of this country's wealth is also a result of World War II and us lending money to France and England. War, in itself, made this country wealthy.

madmax · #26 06-03-2005, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheEpitome1920
To apologize means recognizing that it did happen and that corporations that are still in existence profitted from it. So in a way it does affect people who were never enslaved or owned slaves.

The enslavement of Africans in the United States was/is a human rights issue that has never been fully addressed in the ways other crimes have. We continue to skirt around the issue because we are "so far removed" from it. Ignoring the fact this particular form of enslavement continues to affect American society.

Lets cut to the chase. You are not looking for an apology. Apologies have already been made. The people running Wachovia were not even born 150 years ago. The people that deserve the apology are all dead. We already knew that slavery took place and businesses profited from it. What you really want is 40 acres and a Bentley.

TheEpitome1920 · #27 06-03-2005, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by madmax
You are looking for 40 acres and a Bentley.

Did I miss a memo??

TheEpitome1920 · #28 06-03-2005, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by madmax
The people that deserve the apology are all dead.

70yrs after the incident in Rosewood were a White mob ran Black families out of a town the state gave 2.1 million to their descendants. Are you saying they shouldn't have recieved anything?

madmax · #29 06-03-2005, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheEpitome1920
70yrs after the incident in Rosewood were a White mob ran Black families out of a town the state gave 2.1 million to their descendants. Are you saying they shouldn't have recieved anything?

Was that like, when blacks in LA burned down half the city after the Rodney King verdict? How much in reparations were paid to all the white/asian business owners?

The individuals that were run out of town should be able to take legal action against the individuals that ran them out of town. You on the other hand probably want the rest of white America that had nothing to do with Rosewood pay reparations to the rest of Black America, who also had nothing to do with Rosewood.

preciousjeni · #30 06-03-2005, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheEpitome1920
Wachovia: Predecessor Banks Owned Slaves

By TIM WHITMIRE

The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 1, 2005; 4:50 PM

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Two predecessor banks of Wachovia Corp. owned slaves before the Civil War, the nation's fourth-largest bank said Wednesday as it made an apology to black Americans.

I'm not surprised. It takes a good headstart to get to fourth largest. I appreciate that the higher ups have the social awareness to make a statement on it.