Quote:
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Norgle ruled the plaintiffs' claims "are beyond the constitutional authority of this court."
And he said the suit drew no specific connection between the plaintiffs and the companies named as defendants.
|
Guess my answer was already given, somehow I missed it the first time I read the article. That was the point I was getting at, can't speak my opinion without reading all the evidence though.
-----
as for researching the matter:
No, I'm not black. I am even not an american. I didn't even know any of these companies and neither do I know the plaintiffs.
What I came up with when looking into the article, the lawsuit and the 3 enterprises, goes like this:
Out of the 3 companies, only R.J. Reynolds strikes me as a possibility with a direct connection, as a tobacco producer. The other companies are into the financial sector, and from what I can tell, have always been in that sector. So the only reason they are in this lawsuit, is because they have the money to be able to "afford" this and were once remotely connected.
When you read the article in detail (which I'll admit I hadn't at first), you'll see this has nothing to do with slavery itself, but with what went on *during* the slave trade. So what went on on the market and during the boat-trip. Not what went on at the plantations themselves. So that's the kind of lawsuit they were thinking of having.
I hardly see how you can destroy somebody's ethnic identity while on board with a very select group of people. You cannot make the accept whitey-culture, since in % there are hardly white people on board. There are butchers and bullies to keep them in shackles, sure. But not people that would try to manipulate them in any way on a mental level, especially not for a whole tribe.
And again, I do agree all sorts of atrocious acts may be committed on those people themselves, but they have no effect on the claim the plaintiffs are making.