Politics the Guardian funded with money from the black slave trade, calls for it to be shut down!

Remove this Banner Ad

truedemon

Team Captain
Jun 17, 2020
404
788
AFL Club
Melbourne
THE GUARDIAN is facing calls to “shut down” for hypocrisy after backing BLM protests when it branded Abraham Lincoln “abhorrent” in the US Civil War.


Originally called the Manchester Guardian, the paper was founded in 1821 by John Edward Taylor using profits from a cotton plantation that used slaves.

After his death in 1844, the paper is said to have then demanded Manchester’s cotton workers be forced back into work.


Now with a growing backlash against statues linked to slavery and racism, hundreds have signed a petition taking aim at the Guardian's history.


This petition to shut the paper down has been organised by novelist Tony Parsons, who tweeted: “Shameful links to slave-owning Confederate south. Built on the profits of cotton fields. Shut down The Guardian Newspaper.”


During the US Civil War the paper had sided with the southern Confederates against President Lincoln who wanted to abolish slavery.


A leader piece said: “It was an evil day both for America and the world when he was chosen President of the United States.”


On January 2, 1863, it accused Lincoln of having “no desire to abolish slavery except as a means of extrication from the difficulties of government”.


A year and a half later it claimed: “Nor is Mr Lincoln's re-election by fraud, violence, and intimidation rendered a matter of comparatively small importance solely by the fact that it reveals nothing with respect to the real wishes and thoughts of the majority of his fellow countrymen.”

The left-wing paper then responded to Mr Lincoln’s assassination by laying into his presidency.


On April 27 1865, it said: “Of his rule we can never speak except as a series of acts abhorrent to every true notion of constitutional right and human liberty.”




After the death of George Floyd, Confederate statues honouring slave traders are being vandalised and torn down across the country.


The past few weeks have seen the paper issue a fierce defence of those tearing down the statues, with articles such as “The Guardian view on Colston's statue: a long time in going”.


It has even updated its financial contributions request at the bottom of every article in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests, adding the paper has covered injustice against ethnic minority communities “for decades”.


 

Log in to remove this ad.

THE GUARDIAN is facing calls to “shut down” for hypocrisy after backing BLM protests when it branded Abraham Lincoln “abhorrent” in the US Civil War.


Originally called the Manchester Guardian, the paper was founded in 1821 by John Edward Taylor using profits from a cotton plantation that used slaves.

After his death in 1844, the paper is said to have then demanded Manchester’s cotton workers be forced back into work.


Now with a growing backlash against statues linked to slavery and racism, hundreds have signed a petition taking aim at the Guardian's history.


This petition to shut the paper down has been organised by novelist Tony Parsons, who tweeted: “Shameful links to slave-owning Confederate south. Built on the profits of cotton fields. Shut down The Guardian Newspaper.”


During the US Civil War the paper had sided with the southern Confederates against President Lincoln who wanted to abolish slavery.


A leader piece said: “It was an evil day both for America and the world when he was chosen President of the United States.”


On January 2, 1863, it accused Lincoln of having “no desire to abolish slavery except as a means of extrication from the difficulties of government”.


A year and a half later it claimed: “Nor is Mr Lincoln's re-election by fraud, violence, and intimidation rendered a matter of comparatively small importance solely by the fact that it reveals nothing with respect to the real wishes and thoughts of the majority of his fellow countrymen.”

The left-wing paper then responded to Mr Lincoln’s assassination by laying into his presidency.


On April 27 1865, it said: “Of his rule we can never speak except as a series of acts abhorrent to every true notion of constitutional right and human liberty.”




After the death of George Floyd, Confederate statues honouring slave traders are being vandalised and torn down across the country.


The past few weeks have seen the paper issue a fierce defence of those tearing down the statues, with articles such as “The Guardian view on Colston's statue: a long time in going”.


It has even updated its financial contributions request at the bottom of every article in the wake of the Black Lives Matter protests, adding the paper has covered injustice against ethnic minority communities “for decades”.


This is a joke surely.
 
You can just imagine the partisan right-wing eagerly racing to sign that petition.

The GOP itself has shifted over time. The Guardian has issues, but there aren't many trustworthy, accessible news services nowadays, and Guardian is one of the more useful ones.
Andrew Bolt is lining up.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
You can just imagine the partisan right-wing eagerly racing to sign that petition.

The GOP itself has shifted over time. The Guardian has issues, but there aren't many trustworthy, accessible news services nowadays, and Guardian is one of the more useful ones.
The point is with all of the tearing down of statues, forced name change and closure of business that the leftists are triggered about the guardian is exactly one of those what you are trigger over!

Hypocrisy at its finest
 
The point is with all of the tearing down of statues, forced name change and closure of business that the leftists are triggered about the guardian is exactly one of those what you are trigger over!

Hypocrisy at its finest
I'm not a lefty, I'm not triggered, and I've made posts in threads here regarding statues and company names which run counter to your suggestion here. It is a Sun UK article dude. i.e. tabloid. If you want the Guardian to 'shut down' today for being on the wrong side of history over 150 years ago, then you might as well scrap the entire 'Australia' thing, hand the continent (and damages) back to the rightful owners and deport thyself.

Your post history since joining 3 days ago is entirely toxic and politicised. Someone's been a banned boy!
 
Last edited:
The Guardian isn't going to be shut down. But it highlights the nonsense of all the other things that have any historical links to slavery or colonialism being put under scrutiny. The English rugby song Swing Low Sweet Chariot is "being reviewed". Any business with Colonial in the title is probably right now coming up with alternative names. Even the Collingwood theme tune has come under question as it includes the word "cakewalk” which originated from slaves on plantations dancing in a competition with the winner being awarded a cake.
 
I'm not a lefty, I'm not triggered, and I've made posts in threads here regarding statues and company names which run counter to your suggestion here. It is a Sun UK article dude. i.e. tabloid. If you want the Guardian to 'shut down' today for being on the wrong side of history over 150 years ago, then you might as well scrap the entire 'Australia' thing, hand the continent (and damages) back to the rightful owners and deport thyself.

Your post history since joining 3 days ago is entirely toxic and politicised. Someone's been a banned boy!
Given that you have not commented on the article just dibbled irrelevant dribble
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Given it's been around for ~200 years, I'd think there may have been some shifting in coverage and attitudes over time.

Is it slavery that is driving those who want Cecil Rhodes statue trashed - should it be judged by then or by the Rhodes legacy of yesterday, today & tomorrow.
 
You can just imagine the partisan right-wing eagerly racing to sign that petition.

The GOP itself has shifted over time. The Guardian has issues, but there aren't many trustworthy, accessible news services nowadays, and Guardian is one of the more useful ones.

I'd suggest it covers events from a particular point of view, no more so than Murdoch, Nine or the ABC. If uou dont believe me, just have a look at the way they take pot shots at each other.
 
I'd suggest it covers events from a particular point of view, no more so than Murdoch, Nine or the ABC. If uou dont believe me, just have a look at the way they take pot shots at each other.
It certainly does, but you'd have to be an idiot to miss that, the point is that it tries to present that skew factually, and it's audience hold it to a higher standard of accountability. Murdoch and Nine on the other hand are just entertainment garbage regardless of how skewed or not they happen to me. You don't have to agree with the approach or perspective of a news source, but if the information they happen to present is of a certain quality, then it is retrievable for use. As long as you fill in the blind spots through other informing sources and don't lose perspective. If you don't like tabloid fake and commercialised propaganda, then Murdoch and Nine is unreadable.
 
It certainly does, but you'd have to be an idiot to miss that, the point is that it tries to present that skew factually, and it's audience hold it to a higher standard of accountability. Murdoch and Nine on the other hand are just entertainment garbage regardless of how skewed or not they happen to me. You don't have to agree with the approach or perspective of a news source, but if the information they happen to present is of a certain quality, then it is retrievable for use. As long as you fill in the blind spots through other informing sources and don't lose perspective. If you don't like tabloid fake and commercialised propaganda, then Murdoch and Nine is unreadable.

Interesting take on Murdoch, given its claimed influence ....

I agree we need to take in a range of media because, sadly, they all push a barrow & its obvious.
 
I hate that sh!trag with a passion but wouldn't demand its closure on the basis of origins in a long-gone era which today's five-minute-education mob deem unpalatable.

Just because you dont agree with a point of view is no reason to deny that point of view .... those who seek to close down other points of view are MUGS, I'm not into pseudo political tags, MUGS sums them up.
 
I'd suggest it covers events from a particular point of view, no more so than Murdoch, Nine or the ABC. If uou dont believe me, just have a look at the way they take pot shots at each other.
No!
The guardian, sbs and abc are all on the same level now days! Click bate gutter trash following Hateful but failed Marxist idolises
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top