Re: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill

[Monique . M . Harvey]

It is true that the man has a right to his opinion.  Probably fruitless to
challenge him on it.  Everytime I hear that line about slavery ending 100's
of years ago I cringe.



M. M. Harvey




You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill

[Wilma de Soto]

I agree, Monique.  The supreme irony is in the title of the article:
"Legacy".  It's the legacy of slavery that we are all dealing with on both
sides black and white.


On 4/1/05 1:27 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> 
> It is true that the man has a right to his opinion.  Probably fruitless to
> challenge him on it.  Everytime I hear that line about slavery ending 100's
> of years ago I cringe.
> 
> 
> 
> M. M. Harvey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
> .



You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill

[Mike]

What is it about the legacy of slavery that means it is sensible to
require (for example) a small catering company that was founded last
year and is hoping to bid for city contracts to file an affidavit
certifying that it has never profited from slavery? Small businesses
have enough paperwork to deal with, particularly in bidding for
public-sector contracts, without adding yet another form.

NB: I haven't read the legislation, just the article that was posted to
the list.

Mike

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 14:54:58 -0500, "Wilma de Soto"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I agree, Monique.  The supreme irony is in the title of the article:
> "Legacy".  It's the legacy of slavery that we are all dealing with on
> both
> sides black and white.
> 
> 
> On 4/1/05 1:27 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > It is true that the man has a right to his opinion.  Probably fruitless to
> > challenge him on it.  Everytime I hear that line about slavery ending 100's
> > of years ago I cringe.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > M. M. Harvey
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
> > list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
> > .
> 
> 
> 
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
> .

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

RE: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill

[Dubin, Elisabeth]

Of course we are, I agree.  But that bill is weird at best and damaging
to innocent people at worst.  What is that supposed to achieve?  
 


ELISABETH DUBIN
Hillier ARCHITECTURE
One South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3502 | T 215 636- | F
215 636-9989 | hillier.com

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wilma de Soto
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 2:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity listserv
Subject: Re: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill

I agree, Monique.  The supreme irony is in the title of the article:
"Legacy".  It's the legacy of slavery that we are all dealing with on
both sides black and white.


On 4/1/05 1:27 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> 
> It is true that the man has a right to his opinion.  Probably 
> fruitless to challenge him on it.  Everytime I hear that line about 
> slavery ending 100's of years ago I cringe.
> 
> 
> 
> M. M. Harvey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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>.



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>.




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>.

RE: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill

[Jensen, Shannon]

The existence of slavery, no matter now long ago should not be dismissed
as trivial and racism certainly affects our everyday lives but I do not
see how this bill deals with today's problems in even a marginally
effective manner-if anything it distracts from them. That article may
have been remiss in suggesting that the legacy of slavery is of no
concern, but its condemnation of the bill was right on

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wilma de Soto
Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 2:55 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity listserv
Subject: Re: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill

I agree, Monique.  The supreme irony is in the title of the article:
"Legacy".  It's the legacy of slavery that we are all dealing with on
both
sides black and white.


On 4/1/05 1:27 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> 
> It is true that the man has a right to his opinion.  Probably
fruitless to
> challenge him on it.  Everytime I hear that line about slavery ending
100's
> of years ago I cringe.
> 
> 
> 
> M. M. Harvey
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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>.



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>.


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>.

Re: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill

[Brian Siano]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is true that the man has a right to his opinion.  Probably fruitless to
challenge him on it.  Everytime I hear that line about slavery ending 100's
of years ago I cringe.
 

Why 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?

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
.

Re: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill

[Wilma de Soto]

Dear Elisabeth, Mike, Brian and hopefully Matt,

I cannot disagree with you on the fact that there were more important issues
pending, and perhaps the Bill was badly conceived, written etc.

I cannot speak for Monique, but as for what bothered me was the outright
dismissal of slavery and its continuing benefits for some (due to the
passing on of assets, access to resources and opportunity, and allegedly
superior socio-political status etc.)

Also, its continuing legacy of discrimination and denial of access to
resources (based the assumed inherent inferiority of people of African
descent) that allowed for these political, legal and economic manifestations
to be written into our very society and that have not entirely disappeared.

That was my main concern.

As for reparations, there can be none.  It would be interesting to "follow
the money trail", though just to see.  I am sure there are more companies
than just for instance, J.P. Morgan.

It doesn't even have to be directly linked to the dealing importation or
trading of slaves either; rather the exclusion and unequal access to the
same resources and quality of life based upon the fact that your ancestors
were once slaves, and you inherit the baggage of assumed inferiority.

Perhaps the Bill itself was lacking, but to dismiss the entire issue of the
accumulation of wealth, the passing on of assets, access to resources, equal
education was not entirely correct either in my opinion.

However,  Matt has the right to his opinion and I still respect him and his
right to express it.

Wilma
On 4/1/05 3:25 PM, "Dubin, Elisabeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Of course we are, I agree.  But that bill is weird at best and damaging
> to innocent people at worst.  What is that supposed to achieve?
>  
> 
> 
> ELISABETH DUBIN
> Hillier ARCHITECTURE
> One South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3502 | T 215 636- | F
> 215 636-9989 | hillier.com
> 
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wilma de Soto
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 2:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity listserv
> Subject: Re: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill
> 
> I agree, Monique.  The supreme irony is in the title of the article:
> "Legacy".  It's the legacy of slavery that we are all dealing with on
> both sides black and white.
> 
> 
> On 4/1/05 1:27 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> It is true that the man has a right to his opinion.  Probably
>> fruitless to challenge him on it.  Everytime I hear that line about
>> slavery ending 100's of years ago I cringe.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> M. M. Harvey
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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>.
> 
> 
> 
> 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>.
> 
> 



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>.

Re: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill

[John Desmond]

Salutations, gentlefolk,
Mr. Siano mentioned sanctions against 'collaborators with the British during the 
Revolution'.  The turth, however, is even stranger.

Many Tories - King George III's partisans - had their property (including a good 
chunk of downtown Philly) confiscated during the revolution, and sold to finance 
the Continental war effort.  In the Treaty of Paris (the US copy is in the 
American Philosophical Society library on 5th St) we promised to compensate 
them.  Congress, however, never appropriated the money for this.

Foward two hundred years or so, and in the Helms-somebody Act we insist that the 
Cubans must pay up for what they nationalized in '61.  Of course the United 
Empire Loyalists (think Daughters of the American Revolution, turned inside out) 
have been keeping close track of the amounts due their ancestors, plus interest.

Will a future Film Festival see a remake of "Passport to Pimlico" set in our 
neighborhood - but this time a documentary ?

Yours, John Desmond

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill

[Jedidiah McKee]

I'm thankful for the history lesson this string has
generated.  However, slavery in modern times was also
mentioned, by Brian Siano, I believe.  

By some estimates, there are more slaves alive in the
world today than there have been at any point before
in history.  Many of them are used in  difficult &/or
dangerous mining or harvesting operations.  There is
also the sex slave trade, of which many, if not most,
could be classified as children (since 21-year-olds
have more rights).  This trade exploded with the fall
of the Berlin Wall, with poor and desperate people
trying to get out of Eastern Europe and into the
"golden West".  Sex slavery in the West is different
than in the East; virginity is not the commodity in
Senator's sex toys in North America that it is in
Bangkok.  By the time some CEO has paid $35,000 for a
slave, she has been systematically drugged, underfed,
beaten and raped repeatedly, until all she (or he) has
the energy to do is obey orders.  It's scarcely
surprising that such a slave's working life is only
two years (and they're unlikely to live much longer),
and there are tens of thousands of more slaves being
taken every year.  It is my belief that this practice
will only fade slowly, as simulacra and virtual
reality slowly reduce the demand, and as politics
reduce the supply.  As it is now, there are too many
people in power who benefit fom it, both here in the
US and in Mexico, as well as the Eastern European
cartels that supply the slaves.  

So if you wanna stand up on your soapbox and work for
justice, I would start there.  

Jed McKee.

PS  Much of my specific info on this is from a January
25, 2004 New York Times Sunday Magazine article, and
and interview on WHYY radio Fresh Aire program on
Monday of that week.  (My specific dates may be a
little off, but they're close to that.)

--- John Desmond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Salutations, gentlefolk,
> 
> Mr. Siano mentioned sanctions against 'collaborators
> with the British during the 
> Revolution'.  The turth, however, is even stranger.
> 
> Many Tories - King George III's partisans - had
> their property (including a good 
> chunk of downtown Philly) confiscated during the
> revolution, and sold to finance 
> the Continental war effort.  In the Treaty of Paris
> (the US copy is in the 
> American Philosophical Society library on 5th St) we
> promised to compensate 
> them.  Congress, however, never appropriated the
> money for this.
> 
> Foward two hundred years or so, and in the
> Helms-somebody Act we insist that the 
> Cubans must pay up for what they nationalized in
> '61.  Of course the United 
> Empire Loyalists (think Daughters of the American
> Revolution, turned inside out) 
> have been keeping close track of the amounts due
> their ancestors, plus interest.
> 
> Will a future Film Festival see a remake of
> "Passport to Pimlico" set in our 
> neighborhood - but this time a documentary ?
> 
> Yours, John Desmond
> 
> 
> You are receiving this because you are subscribed to
> the
> list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive
> information, see
> .
> 



__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates. 
http://personals.yahoo.com


You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill

[Brian Siano]

Eric S. Raymond wrote:
In the presence of measurable real-world outcomes with differences
this large, treating political arguments as though all sides are
morally equivalent is fatuous and destructive.  It ignores the 
reality that ideas have consequences, and you can measure the merit
of the contending ideas *by* those consequences.

This isn't the best argument to make, considering that the consequences 
don't derive from the ideas. For example, the French Revolution rapidly 
decayed into mob rule and mass murder-- does this mean that the 
principles of democracy are suspect? Or, take the rule of the 
Sandinistas in Nicaragua, which managed to combine some needed social 
and economic reforms with the brutality one expects from a revolutionary 
regime; does their brutality raise doubts about the worthiness of 
deposing the Somoza regime? Or-- do Stalin's evils mean that labor 
unions and national health care are merely signposts on the way to the 
Gulags?

It's appealing to some to look for this "philosophical" interpretation 
of world events and human nature-- after all, philosophy and ideas are 
easier to manipulate than actual evidence. And ideologues are fond of 
citing atrocities to discredit ideas they dislike-- much like the 
censors who cite horrors like Columbine, or Jeff Weise's spree in 
Minnesota to demonstrate that computer games or the Internet must be 
evaluated in the light of these "consequences." It's a bit like the 
cranks who harp on how the Nazis were the "National _Socialists_," while 
ignoring that they functioned as corporativists and fascists.

A more realistic view would note that regimes which come to power 
through a sudden and profound social change-- a revolution, a war, a 
military coup, etc.-- will tend to be very brutal. _Regardless_ of 
whatever ideals they may have claimed they'd had, they are facing a 
situation where the normal social systems have been disrupted, are not 
reliable, and that their hold on power is tenuous and fragile. (And in 
many cases, there's the threat of outside intervention.) They will 
almost always turn to brutality, police-state techniques, incarceration 
and murder of dissidents and opposing factions. And depending on the 
individuals in power, this can become even _worse_, as psychoses and 
personal ideologies are given vent-- so Hitler can enact concentration 
camps, or Pol Pot could have more than a million people murdered, or 
Stalin could starve whole provinces.

By and large, the "ideas" involved are merely a rationalization for 
these expressions of power. One might draw some distinctions between a 
fascist state and a communist prison-state, and those distinctions might 
have some insight. But by and large, the distinctions don't mean very 
much against the similarities. A dictator can talk as much as he wants 
about freedom and security and even the desires of the people. But those 
are just ideas, and to a police state, that's about the extent of their 
worth.




You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
.

Re: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill

[Brian Siano]

Alex Bove wrote:
I'm sorry, but if you're going to play semantic games, at least have 
the rhetorical skill to make a strong argument of your own:

At 12:31 AM 4/3/2005 -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
The revolutionaries in this country, despite flaws and lapses,
succeeded in founding something better than what it replaced.

You're begging the question.  How can we possibly disagree with you, 
since of course it is an irrefutable "fact" that America is the 
greatest country in the history of the world.
Can't say this is a decent argument, either; it's leaden sarcasm more 
than anything else.

But Eric's point is pretty simplistic, too. He makes a good point-- that 
we can't equate the Cuban and American revolutuions-- but he does so on 
an extremely simplistic basis. He asserts that the American 
revolutionaries "despite flaws and lapses, succeeded in founding 
something better than what it replaced." Well, the phrase "despite flaws 
and lapses" is a pre-emptive dodge, just in case someone cites an issue 
that puts the American revolution in a bad light.

Take, for example, slavery. Briatin abolished the slave trade in 1807, 
and the 1830s saw the emancipation of all British slaves and the 
abolition of slavery as an institution. It took America another thirty 
years, plus a bloody Civil War, to accomplish this on our own shores. 
There is some research showing that the American revolution was, in 
part, a reaction to the growing abolitionist movement, and the 
possibility that Britain might abolish the institution--- but this is 
debatable. On that point alone we can say that many Americans (or 
rather, those kept as property until 1865) were _worse_ off after 
independence. And given the profundity of slavery, I can't quite class 
it along "flaws and lapses."

And we can't compare the subsequent history of America with that of 
Cuba. For one thing, the United States has had 240-odd years of history, 
during which we expanded into and colonized a full continent, with 
almost no serious competition for its resources. (Native Americans 
didn't fare well against the U.S.) For most of that history, we've been 
isolated by two oceans from the political torments of the rest of 
civilization. Cuba, on the other hand, is a large island, with limited 
natural resources. It was dependent upon imports and exports, and its 
history prior to the revolution was one where its economy had been 
dominated by only a few such item (tobacco, sugar). Its revolution 
occurred with the context of the Cold War, where the governments of 
Third World nations were subverted and replaced according to the 
interests of the nuclear superpowers.

So, while Eric is correct in saying that one can't draw equalities 
between the two revolutions, he does so for the wrong reasons.

Do you have factual evidence that Cuba's hospitals are 
"cockroach-infested filth pits"?  Are you so naive as to think that 
U.S. inner cities aren't also "full" of underaged prostitutes peddling 
sex for drugs or money?  Am I suggesting moral equivalence here?  No.  
However, you ought to know that to argue broad generalities from a few 
individual examples is not logically sound.  I might say, for example, 
that Cuba is better than the U.S. because every Cuban child is 
entitled to free health care and public education while American 
children have no such guarantee from their government.  Do you want to 
send your child to Cuba?  Maybe not, but if you based your decision on 
my manipulation of statistics you'd be making a mistake.
This is one of the problems with making such sweeping generalizations. 
For one thing, we have to acknowledge that, for many years, Cuba was, in 
many important ways, a more humane state than many of the U.S. client 
states in the same region-- such as El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, 
and Haiti, and we can include Guatemala and Nicaragua as similar 
examples further away. But Cuba's had a pretty severe decline in the 
past two decades, partly due to the collapse of the Soviet Union, and 
partly due to Fidel's leadership. (God, I wish he'd retire and let 
Cubans run things.) And Central American nations have enjoyed some 
improvement in recent decades, mainly because of the demise and decline 
of their dictators, but because of expanded trade.

But we have hindsight posing as wisdom. Let's say, for the sake of 
argument, that we have two workers sharing the same awful, soul-deading, 
poorly-paying job. Let's say one quits, and he goes through a long 
period of living hand-to-mouth, and his lot doesn't improve for years. 
And let's say that the other one stays-- but, ten years in, he gets a 
new boss, and the new guy turns out to be great, and he gets a raise and 
the job's more tolerable. Does this mean that the second guy was 
_wiser_? Nope: he had no idea what was coming in ten years, and it could 
just as easily have been David Brents until his retirement. Does this 
mean that the former guy was stupid? Nope: he took a risk, and 

Re: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill

[Benseraglio2]

Lest we forget, George Washington's slaves were kept in sheds on what is now the site of the new Liberty Bell pavilion. Every July 3 for the past few years there has been a remembrance and demonstration aiming at getting some sort of historical plaque erected on that site. Two years ago on July 3 there was an interesting interfaith religious service on 6th St. which as I understood it called up and attempted to pacify the spirits of the ancestral slaves.
 
It's common knowledge that Thomas Jefferson not only kept slaves but fathered children by at least one of them. As I understand it, Slavery Disclosure Bills are part of the movement for reparations, of which the first step is simply writing into the American consciousness that the prosperity of this country was founded on the institution of human slavery, which was already almost two centuries old at the time of "Independence."
 
The demise of the institution of lynching is less than a century old in this country. Official, legal segregation began to be eliminated less than 50 years ago. De facto segregation still exists in most parts of the country today. As Vachel Lindsay put it so eloquently, "Mumbo jumbo gonna hoodoo you."
 
 
Ross Bender
http://rossbender.org
 
In a message dated 4/3/2005 2:41:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Take, for example, slavery. Briatin abolished the slave trade in 1807, and the 1830s saw the emancipation of all British slaves and the abolition of slavery as an institution. It took America another thirty years, plus a bloody Civil War, to accomplish this on our own shores. There is some research showing that the American revolution was, in part, a reaction to the growing abolitionist movement, and the possibility that Britain might abolish the institution--- but this is debatable. On that point alone we can say that many Americans (or rather, those kept as property until 1865) were _worse_ off after independence. And given the profundity of slavery, I can't quite class it along "flaws and lapses."

Re: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill

[Monique . M . Harvey]

Wilma and list -

I agree.  I also think that "adding yet another form" as someone stated,
and asking people to expose whether they have any known benefits to slavery
is a small price to ask.  Sadly, most companies are unware of whatever
profits they may have recieved years ago, and do not understand those
other, non-monetary ways that they may have profited.  And it's those other
ways that can hardly be accounted for in this day, and will certainly not
be admitted to.  Why should they - isn't it rational that a group in power
will act in ways to maintain that power?  Why would any business in their
right mind do the research, or do the math, and own up to any kind of
profit?  The Bill is full of holes, but their hearts were in the right
place, I say.  And that's all I can say on the subject - I have a busy day
today.

M. M. Harvey



   
  Wilma de Soto 
   
  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]To:   "Dubin, Elisabeth" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,  
  .net> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL 
PROTECTED]> 
   cc:   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, 
UnivCity
  04/01/05 06:30 PM listserv 
        
           Subject:  Re: [UC] Slavery 
Disclosure Bill  

   




Dear Elisabeth, Mike, Brian and hopefully Matt,

I cannot disagree with you on the fact that there were more important
issues
pending, and perhaps the Bill was badly conceived, written etc.

I cannot speak for Monique, but as for what bothered me was the outright
dismissal of slavery and its continuing benefits for some (due to the
passing on of assets, access to resources and opportunity, and allegedly
superior socio-political status etc.)

Also, its continuing legacy of discrimination and denial of access to
resources (based the assumed inherent inferiority of people of African
descent) that allowed for these political, legal and economic
manifestations
to be written into our very society and that have not entirely disappeared.

That was my main concern.

As for reparations, there can be none.  It would be interesting to "follow
the money trail", though just to see.  I am sure there are more companies
than just for instance, J.P. Morgan.

It doesn't even have to be directly linked to the dealing importation or
trading of slaves either; rather the exclusion and unequal access to the
same resources and quality of life based upon the fact that your ancestors
were once slaves, and you inherit the baggage of assumed inferiority.

Perhaps the Bill itself was lacking, but to dismiss the entire issue of the
accumulation of wealth, the passing on of assets, access to resources,
equal
education was not entirely correct either in my opinion.

However,  Matt has the right to his opinion and I still respect him and his
right to express it.

Wilma
On 4/1/05 3:25 PM, "Dubin, Elisabeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Of course we are, I agree.  But that bill is weird at best and damaging
> to innocent people at worst.  What is that supposed to achieve?
>
>
>
> ELISABETH DUBIN
> Hillier ARCHITECTURE
> One South Penn Square, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3502 | T 215 636- | F
> 215 636-9989 | hillier.com
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wilma de Soto
> Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 2:55 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; UnivCity listserv
> Subject: Re: [UC] Slavery Disclosure Bill
>
> I agree, Monique.  The supreme irony is in the title of the article:
> "Legacy".  It's the legacy of slavery that we are all dealing with on
> both sides black and white.
>
>
> On 4/1/05 1:27 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> It is true that the man has a right to his opinion.  Probably
>> fruitless to challenge him on it.  Everytime I hear that line about
>> slavery ending 100's of years ago I cringe.
>>
>>
>>
>> M. M. Harvey
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>> 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>.
>
>
> 
> 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>.
>
>








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>.