"WOKE" GUARDIAN NEWSPAPER WAS FANATICAL SUPPORTER OF SLAVE-OWNING CONFEDERACY

This is a turn up for the books. It seems that the extreme left-wing Guardian newspaper that is supporting all the efforts to pull down statues of anyone who wasn't "woke" before the word "woke" was even invented wasn't very "woke" itself. 

In fact, back in the day it fully supported the cause of the Southern Confederacy to secede from the "Northern tyrant," LOL. Yes, really!

This is from an editorial the Guardian published on the 13th of May, 1861:

Why should the South be prevented from freeing itself from slavery? And why should not the monopoly which the Northern states seek to fasten on the South be broken down? The question of secession is one of humanity, and of freedom of trade.

Yes, they actually called staying in the Union "slavery." What irony!

Of course this had nothing to do with the fact that the Guardian supported the interests of British cotton barons whose fat profits depended on the slave labour that grew the cotton for the British textile mills, and did so at a time -- the 1860s -- when slavery had already been abolished for decades in the British Empire.

I will say nothing of the appalling working conditions and starvation wages of the cotton mill workers, many of whom were impoverished Irish migrants, as apparently White people were never oppressed.

Now here is an opinion piece in the same newspaper fully supporting pulling down a statue of a Sir Edward Colston, who lived in the 17th century, a time when no-one even questioned slavery. 

Now is not the time for those who for so long defended the indefensible to contort themselves into some new, supposedly moral stance, or play the victim. Their strategy of heel-dragging and obfuscation was predicated on one fundamental assumption: that what happened on Sunday would never happen. They were confident that black people and brown people who call Bristol their home would forever tolerate living under the shadow of a man who traded in human flesh, that the power to decide whether Colston stood or fell lay in their hands. They were wrong on every level. Whatever is said over the next few days, this was not an attack on history. This is history. It is one of those rare historic moments whose arrival means things can never go back to how they were.

Awkward!

If being pulled down and chucked into a canal is fitting treatment for Sir Edward's statue, then it is even more fitting treatment for the Guardian and its entire staff.