Local Governments and Slavery Political Correctness

A couple strange instances of local governments responding to the contemporary backlash against slavery.
First, Los Angeles County recently requested that vendors not use the term “Master/Slave” (apparently common in computing parlance) in their dealing with the county (via Slashdot). A memo issued by the county reportedly included the following:

The County of Los Angeles actively promotes and is committed to ensure a work environment that is free from any discriminatory influence be it actual or perceived. As such, it is the County’s expectation that our manufacturers, suppliers and contractors make a concentrated effort to ensure that any equipment, supplies or services that are provided to County departments do not possess or portray an image that may be construed as offensive or defamatory in nature.
One such recent example included the manufacturer’s labeling of equipment where the words “Master/Slave” appeared to identify the primary and secondary sources. Based on the cultural diversity and sensitivity of Los Angeles County, this is not an acceptable identification label.
We would request that each manufacturer, supplier and contractor review, identify and remove/change any identification or labeling of equipment or components thereof that could be interpreted as discriminatory or offensive in nature before such equipment is sold or otherwise provided to any County department.

As one commenter noted, it’s nice that we’re finally emancipating hard drives.
Second, I read (via TalkLeft) that Lehman Brothers recently became the first company to file an affirmative acknowledgment under Chicago’s slavery disclosure ordinance. In case you missed the story on this, as I did, the Chicago City Council passed an ordinance last year which requires companies doing business with the city to disclose if it (or any of its predecessors) profited from slave labor.
According to ordinance initiator Alderman Dorothy Tillman, the law was intended to help consumers: “I believe people would like to know if a corporation they’re contemplating doing business with has its roots in trading in human cargo.”
Mayor Richard Daley clarified that the law would “not prevent companies from doing business with the city,” but that it would “shed a light on slavery.”
I fail to see what useful function this added paperwork accomplishes. If the city really wants to know more about slavery, they’d be better off sponsoring a historian. And how much do consumers gain in assessing 150-year-old corporate management practices?
Don’t get me wrong; I’m don’t believe slavery and racism are bygone American relics which can now be swept under the rug. But these kinds of superficial measures don’t really don’t get us anywhere, do they?
UPDATE: More on the Lehman Brothers situation (via Say Uncle). The issue has taken an even sillier turn as Ald. Dorothy Tillman is now going after current management. Furthermore, it doesn’t appear companies have been taking the disclosure requirement very seriously:

More than 2,000 slavery disclosure affidavits have been filed by city contractors since Feb. 4, when the landmark disclosure ordinance took effect. Lehman Brothers is the first company to admit that it found anything incriminating in its past.
“I don’t think it means that we’re the only firm that has that part in our history. It just means that we took it very seriously and we’re quick to disclose what we know,” Brown told the Sun-Times last week.

Exactly. I suspect there’s quite a few companies that have past ties to slavery, but no one’s wanting to admit it. The fact that several companies, including Lehman Brothers, are being sued over slavery likely is one reason for that.