I read this post over at NahRight a few minutes ago and it got me thinking. First, I'll give you the gist of the story (as posted at NahRight):
"The Jiggaman was all smiles recently when the team announced that its new arena in Brooklyn, Jay-Z’s hometown, would be called the Barclays Center, after UK-based Barclays Bank, which is paying $400 million over 20 years for naming rights. But just after the January 18 announcement, local politicians and journalists quickly rang the alarm on the deal, criticizing the team and its majority owner, Bruce Ratner, for taking money from a bank whose founding family profited from its ownership of slaves in the 18th century and was involved in controversial dealings with the South African government in the 1980s."Post URL:
http://nahright.com/news/2007/01/30/jay-z-supports-slavery/
If Jay knew that the company owned slaves before they agreed to give them the naming rights, then he should have said something at that time to the other MAJORITY owners out of obligation as a Black man who is a descendant of slaves. But the fact he is only a minority owner probably means that even if he did say something, his words wouldn't mean much at all in terms of making that particular decision.Jay-Z plays himself anyway by fronting like he's the sole owner of the team anyway. But that's just me feeling that way, I guess. So now it looks like he made this decision to go with that company (Barclay's). At least to those who don't know he's just/only a minority owner. It's a REALLY BIG deal for him to even be a minority owner of an NBA franchise, but he's let the whole "I own the Nets" thing ride too far and now it may come back to bite him.
But in general, if the majority owners are cool with dealing with a company that owned slaves, it should probably make Jay question why he's in business with co-owners who don't care about those so-called "facts" of the past. And whatever the controversial dealings were in the 1980s would need to be examined as well. That wasn't that long ago.
The more I think of it though, I am not sure what I would do in this particular situation. I would have definitely stood up and said something about doing business with a company that owned slaves. I think standing up in opposition to doing business with a company that owned slaves - as (most likely) the only Black man to be part-owner of the team - would have been an easy thing to do. Definitely the right thing to do. Whether he did at least that much or not we may never know. But when you are doing business with guys and something like this takes place and you may be forced to re-assess the type of people you are doing business with, what do you do? Stop doing business with them and give up ownership for something another company did 300 years ago or 20 years ago? Or do you let it ride because in the company's recent history there has been no signs of foul play?
The slave-owning took place in the 18th century. We're in the 21st century now. That's 300 years ago! Did it give them as big an advantage in the business arena as slavery gave whites in the building of the U.S. and its class and economic systems? Are the effects/profits of their slave-owning 300 years ago giving them an advantage over everyone else today? Maybe so.
The larger point is that there are many companies that exist today that have directly or indirectly profited from slavery in America and/or slavery in Africa. And, that government corruption is not unique to the South African government and is more likely than not, rampant throughout the world. How many companies in the U.S. have lobbyists on Capitol Hill working on behalf of the company's interests? That's pretty daggon sketchy to me.
Anyway, I'm still gathering my thoughts on this and not 100% sure just how I feel yet. But I found it interesting how Mr. Jigger is so successful in the business arena that a conversation such as this could be evoked because of him and his business ventures/moves.
This would be a great topic for a dinner party.
6 comments:
My first thought after reading this...
If Jay stood up and said I don't want to work with a company that has a history of owning slaves in the past then one/some of the majority owners would stand up and say WE have a family history of owning slaves in the past. Then what? I mean personally it wouldn't surprise me if most of the men I have worked for/with was from families that owned slaves.
"what's a ni99a ta do?!?" :-(
Right. We have been talking about this on the forum a little. Most of us all have made the same point that you made. It's really no way of getting around someone who's family owned slaves in the past. Especially if you work for or do business with someone of a caucasian (sp?) background.
Laf made a good point: "I could see if the company was standing behind their slave trade history, or currently engaging in some oppressive and racist activity. But if not, and the company is legitimately working to do mere business with everyone on equal terms regardless of race, that's what we should be advocating, right! Isn't that the point of racial equality? Sometimes I think Black people just look to fight racism with racism, instead of moving towards a more cohesive resolution."
That's a very good point made by Laf. The thing is that after so much oppression it's hard to not confront such things in a defensive manner. Learned behavior is a big part of any society and with our people we have learned to always get our defenses up even when there is a common or greater goal to be reached. We ALL need to unlearn racism!
I agree. You're a product of your environment (to a certain extent) and a product of how you were raised. A lot of the misconceptions or defense mechanisms I had against white folks came from the stories my stepfather told me about his childhood. Things that he dealt with all the way into his adulthood as far as learning from them and understanding that not everyone is that way.
So that affected me to a certain extent until I got around non-Blacks who were not bad people and who were just like me in a lot of ways.
Exposure and education helps us break down these barriers that we have. It's why I tell people to get out of Capitol Heights and see other cities, countries, etc. Because it opens your eyes and your mind. And you get exposed to people who aren't like you who treat you as an equal. Though there will always be those ignorant or just plain mean-spirited folks, those who are not will help open your mind.
"I could see if the company was standing behind their slave trade history, or currently engaging in some oppressive and racist activity. But if not, and the company is legitimately working to do mere business with everyone on equal terms regardless of race, that's what we should be advocating, right! Isn't that the point of racial equality? Sometimes I think Black people just look to fight racism with racism, instead of moving towards a more cohesive resolution."
Futher you say: "Exposure and education helps us break down these barriers that we have"
and I would add to what has been said already, we have all eithe rworked with or work for a company THAT MAY or MAY NOT have been founded on or funded by "old slave money" and/or if we check OUR OWN history may find that some of OUR own blood owned at least indentured servents...
its a hard way to go, I too believe and HOPE that he stood up and said something, but that again brings my back to what Laf said...its about a cohesive resolution, a harmony of sorts, or if you will a general/common respect for your fellow human being...
Just wanted to really say something about this one
I totally agree.
Post a Comment