The New York Times should change its own name before calling others racist

We’ve heard calls for all statues of white men, Jesus included, to be torn down across the country and many other places in the world in recent weeks. We’ve seen Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben, and Eskimo Pie change their names to avoid offending overly sensitive people. But  those who are making these calls need to take a look at themselves before they point their finger at others – New York Times, we’re looking at you.

Writing for News Busters, Jeffrey Lord points out the irony of a recent New York Times editorial entitled, “Why Does the U.S. Military Celebrate White Supremacy?” Published on May 23, the main point of the editorial is that our country’s military bases should be renamed for American heroes rather than the “racist traitors” they are currently named after.

The piece, which comes from the paper’s Editorial Board, says that the naming of 10 military bases in the South after Confederate Army officers reflects “a federal embrace of white supremacy.”

Lord then cites a 2017 Daily Caller story about the namesake of New York. The Duke of York, James Stuart, is known for creating the greatest slave empire in Britain, the Royal African Company, which moved between 90,000 and 100,000 African slaves to the American colonies and Caribbean from 1672 to 1689.

Slaves who were bought for the Royal African Company of England were branded with the letters “DY” after the company’s president, the Duke of York.

That means that anything with the name New York – including the New York Times – bears the name of one of the world’s most infamous slave traders.

When we apply the NYT’s standards as espoused in their editorial about the military bases, it would stand to reason that naming the paper after a slave-trading racist reflects their embrace of white supremacy, he adds.

Hypocrisy is nothing new for the New York Times

Of course, hypocrisy is nothing new for the New York Times, and you don’t have to go back very far to find examples of this in action. In fact, it was just yesterday that the New York Post called the paper out for this same type of behavior.

In a piece by the Post Editorial Board entitled, “The New York Times’ outrageous, arrogant hypocrisy on who gets to be ‘anonymous’,” they took the paper to task for insisting on exposing the identity of a psychologist who was blogging under just his first and middle name on topics such as the failings of Marxism as a science.

A Times reporter told him the story about him would reveal his full name in accordance with the paper’s rules, at which point he decided to remove all of his past posts, leaving up only one entitled, “NYT is threatening my safety by revealing my real name, so I am deleting the blog.”

However, when the paper was reporting on a personality in the socialist Chapo Trap House podcast, they allowed him to use only his pseudonym and even gave one of the podcaster’s girlfriends anonymity as well.

In other words, it’s no problem to give anonymity to a socialist podcaster, but it’s out of the question for a professional psychologist writing about the failings of Marxism. That sounds about right for the NYT.

So no, the New York Times probably isn’t going to change its name anytime soon – and it’s interesting to note that the “woke” crowd isn’t calling for them to do so when they’re so quick to judge other things they deem racist, like milk and maple syrup.

If the NYT really believed this PC ridiculousness that they expect everyone else to adhere to, they would lead by example by changing their name and issuing an apology for “honoring” one the biggest slave traders the world has ever seen.

Sources for this article include:

NewsBusters.org

DailyCaller.com

NYPost.com