- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
This really annoys me. Certain states and municipalities see fit to pass laws requiring companies to perform research on what ties they have to slavery. Evidently the entire purpose of this exercise is to allow the Jesse Jacksons et al of the world to extort a few million dollars out of corporations.
The company I work for didn't even exist until nearly a century after slavery was abolished by Constitutional amendment. Yet because we merged with another company formed in 1879 (and stupidly took their name) we get tarred with the slavery brush because of a merger that company did with a bank in 1971 which merged with another bank in 1926 which merged with another bank in 1835 that once upon a time had slaveowners for customers (wow, big shocker there). Get this for what the research considered prima facie evidence that the company was involved in slavery:
The threshold for determining if an institution was connected to slavery was set purposely low. If a predecessor institution held U.S. government bonds or notes during the period when slavery was legal in the United States, those institutions were considered to have profited (albeit indirectly) from slavery. Institutions also were considered to have profited from slavery if they held notes in states and municipalities where slavery was legal at that time, or if they invested in or were themselves invested in banks or companies that owned slaves, profited from slave labor, or existed in slave states.
I'm pissed off that my company management and other CEOs out there didn't tell the states to shove these laws up their ass. I'm even more pissed that the methodology they chose to use means it would have been for all practical purposes impossible not to show the desired conclusion. Fvcking pussies in executive management :|
Text as published in press release by my own idiot CEO:
Earlier this year, __________ contracted with The History Factory, a leading historical research firm, to conduct research on the predecessor institutions that, over many years, formed our company.
The resulting research revealed that two of our predecessor institutions, the Georgia Railroad Company and Bank of Charleston, owned slaves.
Due to incomplete records, we cannot determine precisely how many slaves either company owned. Through specific transactional records, researchers determined that the Georgia Railroad and Banking Company owned at least 162 slaves, and the Bank of Charleston accepted at least 529 slaves as collateral on mortgaged properties or loans, and acquired an undetermined number of these individuals when customers defaulted on their loans.
We are deeply saddened by these findings. We apologize to all Americans, and especially to African-Americans and people of African descent.
While we can in no way atone for the past, we can learn from it, and we can continue to promote a better understanding of the African-American story, including the unique struggles, triumphs and contributions of African-Americans, and their important role in America's past and present.
In this vein, _____ plans to partner with community organizations that are experts in furthering awareness and education of African-American history. Our aspiration is to preserve the African-American story and ensure that this important piece of our country's history is incorporated in educational forums. This is a natural fit with our company's strong focus on diversity, education and communities.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: _________ selected The History Factory, a leading professional research company with extensive experience in corporate historical research, archiving and record preservation, to conduct a comprehensive search of our company's history. A seven-person research team expended more than 1,800 hours and visited 24 repositories housing information on and materials of _______'s predecessors. The research began with an exhaustive effort to identify all predecessor institutions of ______ Corporation. This included predecessors of mergers and acquisitions throughout ______'s history, as well as the predecessors of those absorbed institutions. This yielded a list of approximately 400 predecessor institutions, dating back to ______'s earliest predecessor, the Bank of North America, founded in 1781. The list was condensed to 52 institutions that existed in 1865 or earlier. Then 33 of those were eliminated because their ties to ________ were too tenuous to pursue as genuine predecessor institutions. Research efforts focused on identifying and reviewing the records of the 19 remaining institutions. In the course of researching the records of these institutions, any relevant information on founders and directors was noted. The research process included:
* Identifying records that exist online and in historical repositories, such as museums, academic libraries and historical societies
* Traveling to those historical repositories
* Gathering data and information from historical bank ledgers, record books, annual reports, meeting minutes, public documents, newspapers, and even personal correspondence
* Compiling and preparing the final reports.
In some cases, no records could be found. In other cases, records were searched but did not yield any connections to slavery or dealings with organizations and individuals who had ties to slavery. In other cases, however, the research team located information that pointed to predecessors that directly or indirectly profited from slavery. The threshold for determining if an institution was connected to slavery was set purposely low. If a predecessor institution held U.S. government bonds or notes during the period when slavery was legal in the United States, those institutions were considered to have profited (albeit indirectly) from slavery. Institutions also were considered to have profited from slavery if they held notes in states and municipalities where slavery was legal at that time, or if they invested in or were themselves invested in banks or companies that owned slaves, profited from slave labor, or existed in slave states.
The company I work for didn't even exist until nearly a century after slavery was abolished by Constitutional amendment. Yet because we merged with another company formed in 1879 (and stupidly took their name) we get tarred with the slavery brush because of a merger that company did with a bank in 1971 which merged with another bank in 1926 which merged with another bank in 1835 that once upon a time had slaveowners for customers (wow, big shocker there). Get this for what the research considered prima facie evidence that the company was involved in slavery:
The threshold for determining if an institution was connected to slavery was set purposely low. If a predecessor institution held U.S. government bonds or notes during the period when slavery was legal in the United States, those institutions were considered to have profited (albeit indirectly) from slavery. Institutions also were considered to have profited from slavery if they held notes in states and municipalities where slavery was legal at that time, or if they invested in or were themselves invested in banks or companies that owned slaves, profited from slave labor, or existed in slave states.
I'm pissed off that my company management and other CEOs out there didn't tell the states to shove these laws up their ass. I'm even more pissed that the methodology they chose to use means it would have been for all practical purposes impossible not to show the desired conclusion. Fvcking pussies in executive management :|
Text as published in press release by my own idiot CEO:
Earlier this year, __________ contracted with The History Factory, a leading historical research firm, to conduct research on the predecessor institutions that, over many years, formed our company.
The resulting research revealed that two of our predecessor institutions, the Georgia Railroad Company and Bank of Charleston, owned slaves.
Due to incomplete records, we cannot determine precisely how many slaves either company owned. Through specific transactional records, researchers determined that the Georgia Railroad and Banking Company owned at least 162 slaves, and the Bank of Charleston accepted at least 529 slaves as collateral on mortgaged properties or loans, and acquired an undetermined number of these individuals when customers defaulted on their loans.
We are deeply saddened by these findings. We apologize to all Americans, and especially to African-Americans and people of African descent.
While we can in no way atone for the past, we can learn from it, and we can continue to promote a better understanding of the African-American story, including the unique struggles, triumphs and contributions of African-Americans, and their important role in America's past and present.
In this vein, _____ plans to partner with community organizations that are experts in furthering awareness and education of African-American history. Our aspiration is to preserve the African-American story and ensure that this important piece of our country's history is incorporated in educational forums. This is a natural fit with our company's strong focus on diversity, education and communities.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY: _________ selected The History Factory, a leading professional research company with extensive experience in corporate historical research, archiving and record preservation, to conduct a comprehensive search of our company's history. A seven-person research team expended more than 1,800 hours and visited 24 repositories housing information on and materials of _______'s predecessors. The research began with an exhaustive effort to identify all predecessor institutions of ______ Corporation. This included predecessors of mergers and acquisitions throughout ______'s history, as well as the predecessors of those absorbed institutions. This yielded a list of approximately 400 predecessor institutions, dating back to ______'s earliest predecessor, the Bank of North America, founded in 1781. The list was condensed to 52 institutions that existed in 1865 or earlier. Then 33 of those were eliminated because their ties to ________ were too tenuous to pursue as genuine predecessor institutions. Research efforts focused on identifying and reviewing the records of the 19 remaining institutions. In the course of researching the records of these institutions, any relevant information on founders and directors was noted. The research process included:
* Identifying records that exist online and in historical repositories, such as museums, academic libraries and historical societies
* Traveling to those historical repositories
* Gathering data and information from historical bank ledgers, record books, annual reports, meeting minutes, public documents, newspapers, and even personal correspondence
* Compiling and preparing the final reports.
In some cases, no records could be found. In other cases, records were searched but did not yield any connections to slavery or dealings with organizations and individuals who had ties to slavery. In other cases, however, the research team located information that pointed to predecessors that directly or indirectly profited from slavery. The threshold for determining if an institution was connected to slavery was set purposely low. If a predecessor institution held U.S. government bonds or notes during the period when slavery was legal in the United States, those institutions were considered to have profited (albeit indirectly) from slavery. Institutions also were considered to have profited from slavery if they held notes in states and municipalities where slavery was legal at that time, or if they invested in or were themselves invested in banks or companies that owned slaves, profited from slave labor, or existed in slave states.
Facebook
Twitter