When The New York Times Defended Putting a Black Man in the Bronx Zoo – TDB
Just as the late Stephen Jay Gould updated Charles Darwin by arguing that humans evolved through fits and starts—“punctuated equilibrium”—social progress also is less steady than we would like. Even amid a positive trajectory, there are breakthroughs, plateaus, and setbacks. Sometimes, what seems like a step back actually helps propel society forward. The short unhappy life of Ota Benga—the human being exhibited in the Bronx Zoo—demonstrates how one big example of racist ugliness may have resulted in at least one small step toward racial progress.
Source: When The New York Times Defended Putting a Black Man in the Bronx Zoo – The Daily Beast
And this is not fake news. A glimpse into the real world. Real history. Real mindsets.
My Mazamet 
Almost everything except total annihilation will have a silver lining somewhere, but some are thinner than others. This one… 😦
LikeLiked by 1 person
But by criticising New York Times for defending this, you’re attacking their freedom of speech! You’re such a typical regressive leftist, always trying to deny honest americans their freedom of speech! Shame on you!
Eh. Not really, but it seems that’s the reply you could get from a lot of people these days.
I just got involved in another discussion on WEIT with so called “rational” liberals where, once again, I was told that criticism against right wingers is denying them their free speech.
I was stupid enough to visit WEIT because I wanted to see reactions to the news about Russia helping Trump win (something agreed on by both FBI and CIA now).
Instead, I found 2 articles about SJWs, one about a horrible reporter saying bad things about Trump, one about college students (which everyone knows are the real threat in the world of course) and one about milo maybe, perhaps, going too far this time (when he rallied his followers against a transsexual student).
When I wrote a comment in the article about Milo stating that I’m tired of people like him and Trump always being defended because they’re just “provocateurs”, I was told that I’m actually against free speech. Apparently, no one would criticise the holy milo, so I HAD to be using him as an excuse to criticise free speech. Go figure.
I think this is the time I’ll be banned from there considering what a tiny “offense” you were banned for.
Sorry for the rant, but that discussion along with that horrid story about Ota Benga made me lose som faith in humanity again. I think it will be restored at work tomorrow, but until then I’m somewhat in the dumps.
LikeLike
It is funny how they seem blinded by perspective bias. What they’re actually proposing is unilateral free speech. Milo gets to say whatever he wants but no one else is allowed the free speech to criticise him. It would be funny if it weren’t utterly tragic.
But on a good note, there’s a great article in the NYT today on arguing facts:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the article. Was an interesting read.
And yeah I agree with the whole “would be funny if it weren’t so tragic”, I find everything to be some horrible blend of tragedy and comedy these days.
I mean, Trump is soon to be the most powerful man in the western world.
Comedy doesn’t get much blacker than that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Some Brazilians should be in zoo’s 😉
LikeLiked by 1 person
Somewhere I read about this, long, long ago. Perhaps even then in my childhood, the thing seemed unjust. I dreaded confinement, even small spaces. And yet here we are. History repeating itself. I really ought not to be surprised by anything any longer. But as an Electoral College just reaffirmed Bozo in the White House, I am.
LikeLike
//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
He should have. 90 years ago.
LikeLiked by 1 person