Here's a quote from Greg Hunter's Weekly News Wrap-Up, week ending 15 July 2016: "Seventy percent of African American kids are born with only a mother" (Hunter, 2016, min. 16:20). Really? To me, this comment implies that these children have no father. (Note to Mr. Hunter: kids are baby goats.) Mr. Hunter, who promotes himself as one who presents only unbiased facts–in contrast to his nemesis the Mainstream Media (MSM)–is nevertheless remarkably skilled at spinning empirical evidence. In this case, his fact is correct. According to the US National Vital Statistics System, in 2015 70.4% of US births (415,029 infants) were delivered from women who identify themselves as Non-Hispanic black and unmarried (Hamilton, B. E., Martin, J. A., & Osterman, M. J., p. 10). Mr. Hunter, please also note, the US National Center for Health Statistics uses the following terminology to label women who are not married when they give birth to human infants: births to unmarried mothers. "Infants born to unmarried mothers" is not equivalent to "kids with only mothers." Treating the two phrases as if they were conceptually equivalent is called spin.
It seems like the point Mr. Hunter intends to make is probably one about which many people would agree, regardless of race or ethnicity. Yet sadly, the way he phrases his comments comes across as judgmental and divisive. What I think he means is that African Americans are enduring continuing conditions of rampant inequality, even under the Obama administration, which was supposed to bring change for them along with the entire population of our country. But, using an accurate statistic out of context laced with a nearly subliminally delivered value judgement creates and perpetuates stigma that in turn reinforces horrendous and probably untrue beliefs about a socially designated sub-population of the US. While it's true that 70.4% of babies born to Non-Hispanic black mothers are delivered from unmarried women, it is also true that 29.2% of babies born to Non-Hispanic white mothers, 52.9% of babies born to Hispanic mothers, and 40.2% of all births, regardless of race and ethnicity, are delivered from unmarried women. Everyone has high numbers if our ideology forces a goal of zero births to unmarried women.
His words become increasingly less factual and more moralistic when he suggests that the remaining 30% of African American children born in 2015 are born into homes with "a mommy and a daddy" and are probably not the ones being arrested indiscriminately and committing rapes, murders, and other crimes. The implied conclusion here is that nuclear families with one male and one female adult produce children who are productive, desirable US citizens. I'm not sure there is conclusive empirical evidence anywhere that's been peer reviewed to suggest that African American children born to unmarried women are significantly more likely to become criminals compared with those who are born to women who are married. Mr. Hunter has wandered decidedly afar from unbiased reporting into the realm of dogma. He has made a very strong causal claim based solely on a slanted interpretation of one single statistic generated from indicator data with which he has surreptitiously intertwined his personal belief system. These claims amount to no more than pontification and only serve to abuse his viewers' trust that he is providing an unbiased news program. Behavior like this is called using a news program as a pulpit.
His words become increasingly less factual and more moralistic when he suggests that the remaining 30% of African American children born in 2015 are born into homes with "a mommy and a daddy" and are probably not the ones being arrested indiscriminately and committing rapes, murders, and other crimes. The implied conclusion here is that nuclear families with one male and one female adult produce children who are productive, desirable US citizens. I'm not sure there is conclusive empirical evidence anywhere that's been peer reviewed to suggest that African American children born to unmarried women are significantly more likely to become criminals compared with those who are born to women who are married. Mr. Hunter has wandered decidedly afar from unbiased reporting into the realm of dogma. He has made a very strong causal claim based solely on a slanted interpretation of one single statistic generated from indicator data with which he has surreptitiously intertwined his personal belief system. These claims amount to no more than pontification and only serve to abuse his viewers' trust that he is providing an unbiased news program. Behavior like this is called using a news program as a pulpit.
His words are divisive and destructive. His tactics are no better than the MSM he despises. He is fueling the racial divide in this country by perpetuating myths and unnecessarily creating sub-categories of humans–some of whom he judges to be more productive and valuable than others. Using a single statistic taken out of context can be a powerful weapon, capable of wielding unthinkable destruction. His human being categorization function weakens our nation by dividing it, at a time when it is supremely critical for us to focus on equality for all, and find platforms of commonality among individual people who are all equally valuable members of the human race and our societies. His unexamined train of thought illustrates US white male Judeo-Christian hubris and hegemony.
Greg Hunter needs to be scolded for his ignorance and arrogance. And I'm here to do it. It's because I like him and I believe that what he thinks he is doing is offering a factual alternative to the lame information we are fed by the MSM. His objective is the same as mine. To discover and convey truth for the welfare of humanity. He is, in some odd way, a humanitarian. I also believe that he has a good heart and means to do well by his countrymen. Still, his thoughts are steeped in ignorance and reveal that he hasn't spent sufficient time looking inward to articulate what he truly believes.
Also, I must thank Mr. Hunter for providing a springboard for me to comment on one of my favorite cultural fallacies. That is, that the demographic category of married or unmarried measures nothing more than legal status. It is a binary metric (amusingly, also known as a dummy variable to economists) that provides almost no information about the strength or character of a conventional marriage and hence its effect on any children it produces. It's even more absurd to use marital status as a dependable signal for assessing the character of a nuclear family. More accurately, marriage is a socially ascribed legal status for filing tax returns and a handy, automatic asset distribution mechanism for settling financial matters upon the death of one spouse or the other. That's it. Regardless, marital and child support obligations are very cumbersome and complicated to enforce legally. So, what our laws reflect about the values we believe marriage ought to protect, often differs from the reality of life events. Furthermore, whether a woman is married or not when she gives birth to a human infant or infants is probably not a valid or reliable indicator of the child's immediate or future welfare. Just because two people are married doesn't mean they live together, sleep in the same bed, or even speak to one another. Speaking of marital quality, worse yet, maybe the spouses live together but speak to one another using hostile or dismissive tones and attitudes. Alternatively, when a mother is unmarried it does not necessarily mean that the father is uninvolved. A father and mother may live together but choose not to marry. Particularly in low-income, less fortunate sub-populations, it's more likely that state and federal policies provide perverse incentives for parents to remain unmarried or even live apart. There are many factors that combine and interact to effect major life outcomes for an infant born on this planet. The real point is, married or not is a weak, egregiously over-celebrated indicator of family structure, unity and quality of life.
References
Hamilton, B. E., Martin, J. A., & Osterman, M. J. (2016). Births: Preliminary Data for 2015. National vital statistics reports: from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System, 65(3), 1.
Hunter, G. [Greg Hunter]. (2016, July 15). Weekly News Wrap-Up 7.15.16 [Video file]. Retrieved from http://usawatchdog.com/weekly-news-wrap-up-7-15-16-greg-hunter/#more-17593.
No comments:
Post a Comment