Activist journalists should pay the very slavery reparations they advocate
The Guardian has long celebrated the notion of the living paying for the sins of the dead.
It celebrated when rioters tore down the statue of 17th-century slaver Edward Colston before lopping it into Bristol Harbor last week.
But the anger against men like Colston has not stopped at their graves.
Colston left behind wealth which has been traded, moved and inherited since his passing.
The newspaper has argued we must “follow the money” and take back from those who profited from slavery.
“We in the UK need to begin a national debate on reparations for slavery, a crime which heralded the age of capitalism and provided the basis for racism that continues to endanger black life globally,” an opinion piece published by The Guardian argued.
“Protesters making demands of British institutions and examining the individuals who profited from slavery, must also follow the money trail to places such as Union Island. Our vision for change must be global because Britain, after all, was a vast empire.”
Some of The Guardian’s own ideological brethren agree with that premise, so much so they are calling for the newspaper itself to be closed.
A petition has surfaced outlining the sordid history of the world’s most progressive newspaper.
The Guardian – originally called the Manchester Guardian – has not aged as well as one might think.
The paper was founded by John Edward Taylor in 1821 who used profits from a cotton plantation that used slaves to start the business, according to British journalists.
Reporters have even dug up old editorials in which the Manchester Guardian dubbed Abraham Lincoln, the original breaker of chains, as “abhorrent”.
In another leader The Guardian claimed, “it was an evil day both for America and the world when he was chosen President of the United States”.
The Sun also reports after Taylor’s death in 1844 The Guardian called for Manchester’s cotton workers to be forced back into work.
Following the money is certainly tricky but, in this case, it shouldn’t be hard for modern-day Guardian journalists to grasp the logical conclusion of their own ideological pathologies.
They must resign and pay back every cent earned from a company with such a racist past.
Failing to do so would be ignoring they have been profiting from slavery for the duration of their employment.
It is doubtful this will happen, however; they would probably argue their work is too crucial at such a tense juncture of human history.
They are far too important to live by their own rules, only the masses must do that.
The masses of course who are so ignorant of history that thankfully we have The Guardian to set the record straight.
“The fallout from the symbolic toppling of the statue of the slaver Edward Colston, and his plunge to the bottom of Bristol harbour, was the most effective lesson many of us schooled in British classrooms will have had in the facts of the slave trade,” the paper wrote.
“It is only those who would rather not examine the past who demand it be set in stone.”
And did you once think Winston Churchill led the Allied Forces to victory against the Nazis?
“Boris Johnson peddles a self-serving impression that it was the eccentricity of Churchill – and not the allied will and the sacrifice of tens of millions of citizens of nations across the globe,” the paper wrote.
Ironically in the same piece where this Orwellian doublespeak was published the author had the gall to substantiate it with the following quote.
“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”