How far do we carry past sins?
JP Morgan Chase & Co. admitted that a bank which it purchased last summer, Bank One, had as one of its predecessor banks a bank in Louisiana which held slaves as collateral on loans prior to the civil war. To its credit, JP Morgan Chase & Co. has established a $5 million dollar college scholarship fund for african-americans in Louisiana.
But that is not enough for Alderman Dorothy Tillman, she wants the Bank barred from doing business with Chicago, since it said last year on an affidavit that it had no prior dealings with slavery. Click here for story. I can see her point, you can't testify in an affidavit one day and change your story the next.
What I wonder is how did this all come about? The Sun-Times reports that JP Morgan Chase & Co. spent 3,500 hours researching Louisiana bank records, this of course takes time. If they did not know about it until now, its really not that surprising. They should be commended for bringing it to light.
The bigger problem is with Bank One. They took over the bank in question in 1998. They had much more time to research whether or not their predecessors dealt in slaves. Did they declare? Why is this important, because at the new Soldier Field, Bank One's logo is plastered just about everywhere you look. Soldier Field is a city owned stadium. How is it that JP Morgan is threatened with the loss of all city business, while Bank One, which was in a better position to discover the problem was allowed to be so integral in the building of the new stadium. It seems like a twisted version of musical chairs, where whomever has the company when the music stops gets nailed.
And none of this really goes to the legitimacy of the city policy. There is no allegation that JP Morgan Chase & Co., Bank One or any of the predecessor banks broke any laws. The ordinance only requires that companies who do work for the city disclose if they, or their predecessors, hand any financial ties to slavery. The ordinance does not penalize companies who state that there was a connection with slavery. However, few companies want to endure the public relations nightmare that may come from such a revelation.
But that is not enough for Alderman Dorothy Tillman, she wants the Bank barred from doing business with Chicago, since it said last year on an affidavit that it had no prior dealings with slavery. Click here for story. I can see her point, you can't testify in an affidavit one day and change your story the next.
What I wonder is how did this all come about? The Sun-Times reports that JP Morgan Chase & Co. spent 3,500 hours researching Louisiana bank records, this of course takes time. If they did not know about it until now, its really not that surprising. They should be commended for bringing it to light.
The bigger problem is with Bank One. They took over the bank in question in 1998. They had much more time to research whether or not their predecessors dealt in slaves. Did they declare? Why is this important, because at the new Soldier Field, Bank One's logo is plastered just about everywhere you look. Soldier Field is a city owned stadium. How is it that JP Morgan is threatened with the loss of all city business, while Bank One, which was in a better position to discover the problem was allowed to be so integral in the building of the new stadium. It seems like a twisted version of musical chairs, where whomever has the company when the music stops gets nailed.
And none of this really goes to the legitimacy of the city policy. There is no allegation that JP Morgan Chase & Co., Bank One or any of the predecessor banks broke any laws. The ordinance only requires that companies who do work for the city disclose if they, or their predecessors, hand any financial ties to slavery. The ordinance does not penalize companies who state that there was a connection with slavery. However, few companies want to endure the public relations nightmare that may come from such a revelation.
posted by Peter Young @ 10:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home