[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is true that the man has a right to his opinion. Probably fruitless toWhy challenge him on it? In general, it's a reasonable article, and his concerns aren't entirely unfounded. If we're going to screen for companies which profited from American slavery-- which ended almost 150 years ago-- then why not screen for companies which benefitted from business dealings with the Axis countries during WWII? (Ford, for example, which built tanks for the Wehrmacht, and IBM, which provided Hollerith machines.) Or we could go further back-- and screen for companies which collaborated with the British during the War of 1812-- or during the Revolutionary War? Why don't we go back to the Napoleonic Wars, the Wars of the Roses... or impose sanctions against the Catholic Church for the Crusades?
challenge him on it. Everytime I hear that line about slavery ending 100's
of years ago I cringe.
One question begs itself immediately-- what must a company do _now_ to get it off this list of dishonor? Can a company reasonably "make good" and re-establish itself in the community? Or is this a punishment that never ends, and continues unto the stockholders' children's children's children?
Personally, I'd much rather see a bill that screens for companies which beneift from slavery going on _now_, like in the cocoa harvests in the Sudan. That'd accomplisjh something in _our_ lifetime, and improve the lives of people living _now_. The simple fact is that screening for companies which benefitted from slavery wouldn't accomplish a single substantive good.
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
