• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Family who owns NYT has history of slaveholders and more

vesper

vesper

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2013
Messages
25,834
Reaction score
25,190
Location
Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's right the cancel culture promoted at the NYT is owned by a family with deep ties to slaveholders and more. Maybe they should consider canceling themselves.

It’s far worse than I thought. In addition to the many links between the family that owns The New York Times and the Civil War Confederacy, new evidence shows that members of the extended family were slaveholders.

Last Sunday, I recounted that Bertha Levy Ochs, the mother of Times patriarch Adolph S. Ochs, supported the South and slavery. She was caught smuggling medicine to Confederates in a baby carriage and her brother Oscar joined the rebel army.

I have since learned that, according to a family history, Oscar Levy fought alongside two Mississippi cousins, meaning at least three members of Bertha’s family fought for secession.

Adolph Ochs’ own “Southern sympathies” were reflected in the content of the Chattanooga Times, the first newspaper he owned, and then The New York Times. The latter published an editorial in 1900 saying the Democratic Party, which Ochs supported, “may justly insist that the evils of negro suffrage were wantonly inflicted on them.”

Six years later, the Times published a glowing profile of Confederate President Jefferson Davis on the 100th anniversary of his birth, calling him “the great Southern leader.”
Click to expand...


You can read the entire article at the link below.
https://nypost.comYo/2020/07/18/the-family-that-owns-the-new-york-times-were-slaveholders-goodwin/
 
Cardinal said:
What point do you think you're making here, exactly?
Click to expand...

I think anyone with a couple firing neurons would not have a problem figuring out the "point".
 
vesper said:
I think anyone with a couple firing neurons would not have a problem figuring out the "point".
Click to expand...

You don’t have a point.
 
vesper said:
I think anyone with a couple firing neurons would not have a problem figuring out the "point".
Click to expand...

No, seriously, what's the point?
 
vesper said:
That's right the cancel culture promoted at the NYT is owned by a family with deep ties to slaveholders and more. Maybe they should consider canceling themselves.
Click to expand...
So-called "cancel culture" doesn't relate to what someones distant ancestors might have done, only what people or organisations have done themselves. Pretty much everyone will have ancestors who did any number of other abhorrent things, you and I included. That doesn't reflect on the descendants at all in any way.
 
The NYT's "1619 Project" is what creates the irony.

Family That Owns the New York Times Were Slaveholders
Michael Goodwin, NY Post

". . . . All that would be bad enough given that the same family still owns the Times and allows it to become a leader in the movement to demonize America’s founding and rewrite history to put slavery at its core. As part of that revisionism, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln are suddenly beyond redemption, their great deeds canceled by their flaws.
But shouldn’t such breathtaking self-righteousness include the responsibility to lead by example? Shouldn’t the Times first clean out the Confederates in its own closet? . . . "
 
Jack Hays said:
The NYT's "1619 Project" is what creates the irony.

Family That Owns the New York Times Were Slaveholders
Michael Goodwin, NY Post

". . . . All that would be bad enough given that the same family still owns the Times and allows it to become a leader in the movement to demonize America’s founding and rewrite history to put slavery at its core. As part of that revisionism, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln are suddenly beyond redemption, their great deeds canceled by their flaws.
But shouldn’t such breathtaking self-righteousness include the responsibility to lead by example? Shouldn’t the Times first clean out the Confederates in its own closet? . . . "
Click to expand...

Is there something about the family that leads you to conclude that they celebrate their slaveholder ancestors? Do they worship Confederate monuments or drive cars with the Dixie flag on the hoods? Do they occasionally yell, "The South will rise again!" or the such?

All of these are rhetorical questions because I know you have no intention of answering them directly.
 
vesper said:
I think anyone with a couple firing neurons would not have a problem figuring out the "point".
Click to expand...

Anyone "with a couple firing neurons" has no problem figuring out that you wanted to say "I HATE LIBRULZ!" but that you ultimately failed to say it coherently.

You just sort of spazzed vaguely at them.
 
vesper said:
I think anyone with a couple firing neurons would not have a problem figuring out the "point".
Click to expand...

So...since you can't demonstrate the point, should we assume that you do not have a couple firing neurons?

Who should be cancelled? Can you at least start with that? Is it the owners, the entire paper, what?
 
Cardinal said:
Is there something about the family that leads you to conclude that they celebrate their slaveholder ancestors? Do they worship Confederate monuments or drive cars with the Dixie flag on the hoods? Do they occasionally yell, "The South will rise again!" or the such?

All of these are rhetorical questions because I know you have no intention of answering them directly.
Click to expand...

The answer to your question was in my post. I have no idea what the family believe about their slaveholder ancestors. Why? Because they chose to remain silent about them while their newspaper lectures us all about coming to terms with slavery in our past. Irony? Certainly. Hypocrisy? Very likely.
 
Jack Hays said:
I have no idea what the family believe about their slaveholder ancestors.
Click to expand...

That's a solid place for you to begin and end your involvement in this thread.
 
Jack Hays said:
No one has been accused of guilt for ancestors' actions.
Click to expand...

Then explain what's hypocritical about a descendant of slave owners saying the country needs to come to terms with slavery in it's past. Sounds appropriate to me.
 
Jack Hays said:
You are embarrassed to defend hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Based on how you're using it in a sentence, you clearly have no idea what "hypocrisy" means. It's obvious you only used the word because you know that "hypocrisy" is a bad thing.
 
Grand Mal said:
Then explain what's hypocritical about a descendant of slave owners saying the country needs to come to terms with slavery in it's past. Sounds appropriate to me.
Click to expand...

Because he kept silent about his own family's past while lecturing everyone else. That's hypocrisy. Had he started with a confession of his own family's past, this thread would not exist.

The NYT's "1619 Project" is a bundle of distortions, falsehoods and factual errors, but that's another topic.
 
Cardinal said:
Based on how you're using it in a sentence, you clearly have no idea what "hypocrisy" means. It's obvious you only used the word because you know that "hypocrisy" is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

Deflect and squirm all you want. You can't get away from the family lecturing us all about coming publicly to terms with a past about which they chose to remain silent regarding their own ancestors. That is indeed hypocrisy.
 
Jack Hays said:
Deflect and squirm all you want. You can't get away from the family lecturing us all about coming publicly to terms with a past about which they chose to remain silent regarding their own family. That is indeed hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

See, if you knew what "hypocrisy" meant, you would know that "hypocrisy" and "I have no idea what the family believe about their slaveholder ancestors" are mutually exclusive.

But you don't know what it means, and you've quite clearly decided to embarrass yourself in post after post after post.
 
Jack Hays said:
Because he kept silent about his own family's past while lecturing everyone else. That's hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

No. That's actually the opposite of hypocrisy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom