Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Here we go with Gypsies again

The last time I did a post on Gypsies, I pointed out that, contrary to popular depictions in cartoons and movies, Gypsy women actually aren't attractive by European standards. One correspondent glommed onto that statement, and frequently writes that I "hate Gypsies," and that I "think they're ugly."  Kind of a stretch, because my taste isn't expressed at all, but only "European standards." But it's the old rule — political correctness trumps the truth every time.

And political correctness requires that Gypsies, along with practically every non-European ethic group in the world, never be criticized for bad behavior.  No, their bad behavior is the fault of the majority, i. e. Whitey.

Steve Sailer, the Essential Blogger, is very good at finding subtle relationships and principles that most of us miss. He pointed out some time ago that the best newspaper to go to for actual news isn't any American newspaper, but rather the British Daily Mail. Don't let it fool you.  Of course, it has a lot of celebrity gossip and blather just like all tabloids, but when you navigate past that, you find some real news — news of the kind that most American media automatically suppress whenever they find it.  When US media report that "youths were involved in fighting," the Daily Mail will report "Black rioting."  The rule here in the US is that misbehavior on the part of non-Whites is not to be reported at all, if possible.  And if reported, the race of the perps is to be ignored and not mentioned, because it's deemed to be irrelevant.  On the other hand, when a part-White guy like Zimmerman kills Trayvon, he is described as "White."  You get the drift.  Steve writes about how the New York Times and the Daily Mail have totally different strategies when reporting on Gypsy news:

Daily Mail v. NYT smackdown on gypsies in France

It would be interesting to compare coverage of gypsies (a.k.a. Roma) in the New York Times versus the Daily Mail. My impression is that you could come up with an equally accurate awareness from both, but that, even though New York Times readers average better reading skills, the average Daily Mail reader winds up better informed because the Daily Mail articles are structured to communicate the key information, while the NYT articles are structured to bury it.

For example, in summer's NYT article "Treatment Still Harsh for Roma in France" by Steven Erlanger, the first five paragraphs are boilerplate about how everybody is mean to the gypsies, but then you get to this, which I'll ellipse like crazy to get the key point across lucidly:
Small, thin, often wearing bright clothing like green pants or a pink scarf, the men are prostitutes, looking for work or waiting for prearranged rendezvous. ... Some are as young as 14, though they insist they are older; some are 16 and married, sometimes with children. ... He and his friends, like Bogdan, 17, and Gutsa, 17, whose wife is pregnant, “do business” at the station, he said;

Homosexual prostitution and heterosexual baby boom all rolled into one!

NYT reporters tend to be bright and they'd prefer not to be boring, but they have to respect the world view of their readers: everything bad is the fault of some majority. So, you start with five paragraphs about how bad the majority treats the minority to imply that the juicy details you finally get to reveal about how hilariously awful is Roma culture must be the fault of the French for trying not to get their pockets picked by gypsies. (Read the rest HERE. And do read the comments.) (and more from the Daily Mail on Gypsies HERE)

1 comment:

  1. Sad but true. I can't argue with you about being honest. I've seen for myself on my travels to Europe.