New York Times Buries Surprise Study Results To Stoke Racism

A hallmark of the modern Democratic Party and Progressive Left in America is keeping racial tensions high. Whether affirmative action reverse discrimination — which is just discrimination — or college quotas or disparate impacts of any variety, the Left sees and lives through a prism of race either for social justice purposes or for cultural power purposes or electoral purposes.

The goal of racial harmony most certainly does not fit anywhere in the spectrum.

A recent New York Times article demonstrates this dynamic perfectly, and adds to the overflowing pot of evidence that most traditional media organizations can simply not be trusted to report honestly on race, along with the pantheon of other political and cultural issues.

In a story under the headline, “Extensive Data Shows Punishing Reach of Racism for Black Boys,” the Times gives a factually gerrymandered take on a study that actually showed much bigger issues and, by the way, included data debunking the disparity-as-racism mantra.

But no political agenda is to be sidetracked with facts. Therefore the Times reported that young black men trail young white men brought up in similar socio-economic circumstances because America is still a widely racist country:

“Black boys raised in America, even in the wealthiest families and living in some of the most well-to-do neighborhoods, still earn less in adulthood than white boys with similar backgrounds, according to a sweeping new study that traced the lives of millions of children. White boys who grow up rich are likely to remain that way. Black boys raised at the top, however, are more likely to become poor than to stay wealthy in their own adult households...Gaps persisted even when black and white boys grew up in families with the same income, similar family structures, similar education levels and even similar levels of accumulated wealth.”

For progressives, and that is who writes for the Times, the conclusion is systemic racism. Actually, it was the conclusion before the study, as the Times publishes this sort of bad reporting all the time to fit their agenda. Because while that single data point certainly suggests racism as a possibility (as long as we never consider personal behavior as having consequences) it ignores more data that is counterfactual to its conclusion.

Here’s where: The actual study says this disparity does not apply to black women who are brought up in similar socio-economic circumstances as white women.

From the study: “No such income gap exists between black and white women raised in similar households…black women earn slightly more than white women conditional on parent income.”

Further counterfactual: “Black women have higher college attendance rates than white men, conditional on parental income.”

Well that’s a whole lot of data totally undermining the racism part. If black women do slightly better than white women in similar upbringings, according to this study, and white men do better than black men in similar upbringings, it seems the one thing that is clear is that race is not the disparity driver. Perhaps sexism? But if so, it is reverse sexism from what the intersectionalists say, where a woman is more aggrieved than a man. This study also undermines that thesis.

This turns it all on its head and completely undermines the idea of the “punishing reach of racism” trumpeted in the Times’ headline. But the Times, pursuing an agenda, not journalism, just takes the single data point to try to demonstrate systemic racism. It never asks or pursues the more likely possibility that young black men are making different choices than young white men, young white women and young black women. And here is a big reason for that: If it were the case, en masse, it would suggest a cultural deficiency. And in the age of punishing political correctness, such honest questions cannot be asked.

And so the Times deeply downplays that data on black women flourishing, focusing on the disparity of black men not flourishing. They quote Ibram Kendi, a professor and director of the Antiracist Research and Policy Center at American University. “…for whatever reason, we’re unwilling to stare racism in the face.”

Real journalists would note that Professor Kendi has an inherent bias here. He’s the director of nothing if there is no serious racism in America. The Times loses a major progressive agenda issue if there is no serious racism in America. The Democratic Party loses a powerful electoral weapon if there is no serious racism in America.

All of them have an incentive to keep stoking the fires that America is a deeply racist country. And they do so, to the profound detriment of the country.

But this is true for all things.

The Left benefits from misery. The more misery in society, the more voters will demand that activist government “do something”. So, if you are an activist in government, you WANT as much misery as possible.

You can campaign for better schools, less racism, better wages, more opportunity — but the LAST thing you want to provide is better schools, less racism, better wages, more opportunity. What’s the upside to that????

Sell the sizzle all day long. But don’t ever give anyone any steak.

“There is another class of coloured people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the Negro race before the public. Having learned that they are able to make a living out of their troubles, they have grown into the settled habit of advertising their wrongs — partly because they want sympathy and partly because it pays. Some of these people do not want the Negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs.”

-- Booker T. washington

Didn't Lenin have a motto: "The worse--the better"? In other words, bad conditions spell opportunities for revolutionaries.

If black men are not achieving at the same rate as white men with comparable backgrounds, perhaps it is partly because they have been bombarded with the message that the system is rigged against them and that they won't be able to make it because of white racism. If the effort is doomed, why even try?

"The Left benefits from misery. The more misery in society, the more voters will demand that activist government “do something”. So, if you are an activist in government, you WANT as much misery as possible.

True, but there is another related consideration. Politics tends to attract narcissists, but I would argue that there are many more narcissists amongst liberal politicians. I would further argue that this is so because liberal politics/activist politics provides the best opportunity for a narcissist to embellish their own importance - 'saving the world, fighting injustice, pushing for equality of all (except them, of course)'. It's a quite selfish motivation, and it leads to a plethora of politicians on the left who want to 'transform America'. After all, if they don't do 'activist' things, what can they take credit for?

What you report is consistent with a wealth of data from psychological testing over the past century--also with analysis of matriarchal social orders among African tribes. The Times grievance take on comparative social dynamics, on the other hand, is consistent with the Jacobin/Marxist/Fabian/Nazi efforts over the past eight generations to mislead for political purposes.

For other aspects of what is going on in the propaganda war:

Reality Is Not A Grievance.

Leftist War On Social Continuity.

>>> Black boys raised at the top, however, are more likely to become poor than to stay wealthy in their own adult households...Gaps persisted even when black and white boys grew up in families with the same income, similar family structures, similar education levels and even similar levels of accumulated wealth. <<<

I know I am going to offend the crowd being ‘too generalized’. But. These Black youths do it to themselves.

Even growing up in families with similar backgrounds and stuff (income, structure, education level, etc.), it is what they believe and being pressured (by society in general, maybe not by their parents) to ‘NOT behave/be white’. Witness plenty of the children of black ‘rich and famous’ people, they act like they’re from the ‘hoods.

Welcome to anti-Trump action. The unhappier the voters will be in four years, now three, the more they will be inclined to change. Saul Alinsky uses about half of his rules for radicals on this topic. Both Clintons and Obamas were disciples.

rwood

According to Dr. Jordan Peterson the two top predictors of success are 1) intelligence and 2) conscientiousness. The basic issue on the issue of how well young black men do in comparison to while men is that on average whites have a higher IQ than blacks.

But this whole focus dodges the elephant in the room: Asians living in the US have a higher IQ than do whites. Yet the focus is on white vs black. Progressives will never complain about Asian vs black.

And how does the hard data explain why the black on black murder rate is many times the white on white murder rate? Because whites are racccciissst? I think not.

Some truths are hard to accept. The average IQ of South Koreans is 106 and the average IQ of Equatorial Guineans is 56?

Long ago, when tribal slave traders stole a person from that region and their descendants end up being free citizens of the United States, why should their IQ differences with others from different countries disappear? A high IQ is not a civil right as much as Progressives wish it was.

Busted! What a devastating takedown of the Times' biased, divisive, race-baiting journalism! Straightforward, simple, and crushing. There's simply no effective rebuttal to the exposure of such transparent propaganda.

Don't you just love how the Times trots out the professor at the end of the piece to solemnly and "authoritatively" conclude “…for whatever reason, we’re unwilling to stare racism in the face.”

What absolute garbage from the NYT—weaponized journalism that should almost be considered criminal...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.