A great analogous is comparing the number of articles on the hysteria about Canadian and American boarding schools for Indians.
They’ve been out of operation for 50 years, haven’t been compulsory for functional families for 100, and probably had fewer victims over their 100 year history than the rape gangs did in a decade. Amusingly, even ChatGPT concedes that death rates at these schools were LOWER than children in the general population during that period, but that hasn’t stopped the histrionics from the same mainstream media who are now aghast that anyone would discuss industrial scale racialized gang rapes a mere 5-10 years later.
All over the world you can find 20th century stories of:
1) White people who sincerely believed their culture was objectively superior (less drunken, less polygamous, etc) and that non-white people would be better off adopting white cultural practices
2) White people who worked on these projects (missionaries, reform school employees, etc) who abused their power and did awful things
I personally don’t really have a frame of reference to assess either how big the effects of 1) and 2) are. I don’t think the discipline of history is all that helpful either. It depends a lot on the ideological positions of the storytellers.
I live a long way from America in a country with no history of slavery or race-based segregation.
One of the first bits of history my kids learn in school is about the Jim Crow South in the US. They learn this before they learn very much about the history of their own country in the 20th Century.
There are objective reasons for this: Jim Crow segregation was obviously bad, relatively recent, and very easy to teach.
But I think the bigger reason is that US elite culture has a true global reach. Who controls the agenda at the New York Times for a few decades changes how people think about various things.
In my country (NZ) the indigenous people practised a form of slavery by keeping alive those (valuable) captives who would work for them. Those that didn't were abandoned to die (it being impossible for individuals and even small isolated groups to survive) or eaten (protein was in short supply). People with indigenous parentage (down to 'one drop') currently make up about 15% to 20% of our population.
We (and our kids when they were at school in the '00s and 2010s) were not taught a history of 'Jim Crow', though we were taught in 'grade' school quite a lot of the history of our nation from the first arrival of people here about 750 (some say 1000) years ago.
Being taught about 'Jim Crow' would have been considered bonkers and have got a lot of sideways looks from parents. I do recall one of the kids studying some cold war (soviet vs west) history when he was 17yo.
My white, native Southern family, with a history of 350 years there, actively supported desegregation in the early 1960s. So much so that my older brother saw the need to guard his house with loaded guns. I helped him with that, and I also accompanied him to evening organizational meetings in the basement of the 16th Street Baptist Church because our parents thought that, if two people were in his car going home afterwards, my brother would be less likely to be harmed by the police who monitored attendance at the meetings. That church was later bombed by a Klan splinter group, and four children were killed.
Five years on, I was in graduate school and met a Jewish girl from New York City. After we had been dating for a while, she made the comment that, "If my parents knew I was going out with someone from Alabama, they would go ballistic." I had never told her about my family's advocacy which resulted in multiple death threats to my father, my brother, and me. Nor did I tell her in response to her comment. She wasn't a serious enough person to have such a discussion with.
Jewish, e.g., New York Times, propaganda against the South has been relentless since the Leo Frank episode. Yet, anyone who cares to examine historical facts knows that the vast majority of Southerners were not slaveholders, that the Southern States" referenda on secession were rigged against the Unionist voters, that Confederate conscription was unpopular and was increasingly resisted until finally the Confederate armies were forced to surrender for lack of manpower. They also know that Jim Crow laws had dual purposes: to economically disadvantage blacks and to protect whites from black crime. How many times fewer stories has the NY Times done on the hugely disproportional racial crime rates in contrast to stories on the dysfunctional white, lower-class culture (which I have also experienced up close and personal as an owner of rural tracts of land)?
In this age of propaganda, no one can really know the truth about a situation without witnessing it. Of course, in extreme cases the witnessing can be through the videographic type of journalism, as opposed to the Edward Bernays type in which the NY Times specializes. The Gazan genocide is a good example of the former.
Thank you, Emil, for ferreting out the truth in this case.
Over the next year, I think that people are going to start designing AI agents to do automated analysis of how the press has covered major historical events. It should be eye opening.
Yes, Emmett was American. But we might also note that the English rape gangs have claimed most of their victims in the past 10 years, and remain active today. While Emmett Till died 68 years ago.
Which of the two can reasonably be considered "news"? Fit to print in, say, a "newspaper"?
I used to read Yglesias (15 years ago so the statute of limitation has expired). I remember clearly that at the time he read Steve Sailer and sometimes mentioned him. Like many mainstream commentators, I am pretty sure he continued to read Steve Sailer. So indeed he was aware of Rotherham and of the grooming gangs contrary to a vast majority of NYT readers.
Not “systemic”. _Systematic_. The former means “the system” in general is responsible. The latter means organized, with established methods and procedures.
While it does seem that the authorities did try to sweep it under the rug…
A great analogous is comparing the number of articles on the hysteria about Canadian and American boarding schools for Indians.
They’ve been out of operation for 50 years, haven’t been compulsory for functional families for 100, and probably had fewer victims over their 100 year history than the rape gangs did in a decade. Amusingly, even ChatGPT concedes that death rates at these schools were LOWER than children in the general population during that period, but that hasn’t stopped the histrionics from the same mainstream media who are now aghast that anyone would discuss industrial scale racialized gang rapes a mere 5-10 years later.
All over the world you can find 20th century stories of:
1) White people who sincerely believed their culture was objectively superior (less drunken, less polygamous, etc) and that non-white people would be better off adopting white cultural practices
2) White people who worked on these projects (missionaries, reform school employees, etc) who abused their power and did awful things
I personally don’t really have a frame of reference to assess either how big the effects of 1) and 2) are. I don’t think the discipline of history is all that helpful either. It depends a lot on the ideological positions of the storytellers.
I live a long way from America in a country with no history of slavery or race-based segregation.
One of the first bits of history my kids learn in school is about the Jim Crow South in the US. They learn this before they learn very much about the history of their own country in the 20th Century.
There are objective reasons for this: Jim Crow segregation was obviously bad, relatively recent, and very easy to teach.
But I think the bigger reason is that US elite culture has a true global reach. Who controls the agenda at the New York Times for a few decades changes how people think about various things.
In my country (NZ) the indigenous people practised a form of slavery by keeping alive those (valuable) captives who would work for them. Those that didn't were abandoned to die (it being impossible for individuals and even small isolated groups to survive) or eaten (protein was in short supply). People with indigenous parentage (down to 'one drop') currently make up about 15% to 20% of our population.
We (and our kids when they were at school in the '00s and 2010s) were not taught a history of 'Jim Crow', though we were taught in 'grade' school quite a lot of the history of our nation from the first arrival of people here about 750 (some say 1000) years ago.
Being taught about 'Jim Crow' would have been considered bonkers and have got a lot of sideways looks from parents. I do recall one of the kids studying some cold war (soviet vs west) history when he was 17yo.
My white, native Southern family, with a history of 350 years there, actively supported desegregation in the early 1960s. So much so that my older brother saw the need to guard his house with loaded guns. I helped him with that, and I also accompanied him to evening organizational meetings in the basement of the 16th Street Baptist Church because our parents thought that, if two people were in his car going home afterwards, my brother would be less likely to be harmed by the police who monitored attendance at the meetings. That church was later bombed by a Klan splinter group, and four children were killed.
Five years on, I was in graduate school and met a Jewish girl from New York City. After we had been dating for a while, she made the comment that, "If my parents knew I was going out with someone from Alabama, they would go ballistic." I had never told her about my family's advocacy which resulted in multiple death threats to my father, my brother, and me. Nor did I tell her in response to her comment. She wasn't a serious enough person to have such a discussion with.
Jewish, e.g., New York Times, propaganda against the South has been relentless since the Leo Frank episode. Yet, anyone who cares to examine historical facts knows that the vast majority of Southerners were not slaveholders, that the Southern States" referenda on secession were rigged against the Unionist voters, that Confederate conscription was unpopular and was increasingly resisted until finally the Confederate armies were forced to surrender for lack of manpower. They also know that Jim Crow laws had dual purposes: to economically disadvantage blacks and to protect whites from black crime. How many times fewer stories has the NY Times done on the hugely disproportional racial crime rates in contrast to stories on the dysfunctional white, lower-class culture (which I have also experienced up close and personal as an owner of rural tracts of land)?
In this age of propaganda, no one can really know the truth about a situation without witnessing it. Of course, in extreme cases the witnessing can be through the videographic type of journalism, as opposed to the Edward Bernays type in which the NY Times specializes. The Gazan genocide is a good example of the former.
Thank you, Emil, for ferreting out the truth in this case.
Over the next year, I think that people are going to start designing AI agents to do automated analysis of how the press has covered major historical events. It should be eye opening.
Yes, Emmett was American. But we might also note that the English rape gangs have claimed most of their victims in the past 10 years, and remain active today. While Emmett Till died 68 years ago.
Which of the two can reasonably be considered "news"? Fit to print in, say, a "newspaper"?
I used to read Yglesias (15 years ago so the statute of limitation has expired). I remember clearly that at the time he read Steve Sailer and sometimes mentioned him. Like many mainstream commentators, I am pretty sure he continued to read Steve Sailer. So indeed he was aware of Rotherham and of the grooming gangs contrary to a vast majority of NYT readers.
Not “systemic”. _Systematic_. The former means “the system” in general is responsible. The latter means organized, with established methods and procedures.
While it does seem that the authorities did try to sweep it under the rug…
Did autocorrect strike again?
No surprise about the NYT, which gave up any pretence of actual journalism years ago, but what would those numbers look like from a real newspaper?
Your work is appreciated. Well done on going to the apparently minor effort needed to make this unsurprising finding (of NYT bias).
and how many stories about Epstein's list of pedophiles?
As the whites and especially the Anglos become a minority in the US, UK news becomes as interesting as US news.
The NYT isn't run by whites though of course.