"Prosecutors File 2nd Degree Murder Charges In Shooting Of Martin"
Take a close look at the photo in question :
I find this photograph to be curious to the extreme, to the point of being suspicious in fact.
What the Times gives us here in this possibly subliminal photo is a roomful of diverse people(s) celebrating the post-racial victory of George Zimmerman's take-down.
But here's where my COTT bullshit alarms start dinging loudly: the photo contains an almost anthropology department profile-shot of a typical white dude, next to an equally clear profile-shot of a black woman, who because she is in traditional African attire, leads the reader to further assume that she is likely 100% black (unlike only 83% black for most African Americans, who have 17% European racial admixture on average).
This just seems suspiciously similar to the type of comparative diagrams of cranial morphology straight out of Dr. Samuel Morton's work. (Morton is the guy whose extensive 1830s work on skull sizes was the target of Stephen J. Gould's since-debunked "Mismeasure of Man").
If the New York Times is always working so hard to downplay the significance of inherent racial differences - especially God forbid in biology - why then would they give us a photograph worthy of a race realism primer straight out of late-19th century America?
I put it to COTT readers: observer bias or actual conspiracy?
...look to me a lot like :
|Source here. |
New York Times: you did NOT just do this, did you?
Aww Naw Yo didnnt !