The rise of renewed and vociferous social movements for every non-white and non-cismale group can be seen as paralleling the rise of social media and the domination of technology platforms. In a time, at least in the Western world, when blacks, women, gays, and most other populations have won equal rights, and even preferential rights, under codified federal law, and when their social currency has never been higher, it seems now that their voice has never sounded more pained or aggrieved.
Without a doubt, the ease of emoting through a tweet has certainly affected how individual users can set off maelstroms of irrational fury. Whether calling out real hurt, self-deluded hurt, or pure schadenfreude, there is no shortage of bored and usually meaningless lives attempting to drag down a crab that has nearly escaped the barrel of life.
The other side of the same coin is how the tech giant themselves can influence the narrative. We see this play out with not-so-alleged shadow banning practices of conservative social media accounts, and most people are by now aware of YouTube demonetizing conservative channels. We can add a new wrinkle: The representation of Google Image searches to advance a social narrative.
Let’s break down what we saw in our own online queries and then we can analyze it afterwards. Try it out for yourself and leave a comment at the end of the article.
Google Search: “White Men”
The top three rows of the search produced a total of sixteen results. Of those, there were:
One result featuring a woman of color
Three results featuring exclusively black men, either as a victim of white brutality or as a successful black man. Each image is a well-dressed black man wearing a tuxedo or suit.
Five results featuring either a mug shot of some kind or simply an angry visage.
Visible taglines for the images including phrases like “Dear White Men, We Need You,” “White Men Are Bad,” “An Angry White Man” and one begins “White Men Aren’t Thrilled When Women”
Only two results showing white men smiling
Google Search: “Black Men”
The top three rows of the search produced a total of seventeen results. Of those, there were:
All seventeen results featuring black men
Eight of the results featuring black men smiling
At least six of the results explicitly expressing victimhood. A few others are more vague but allude to it.
Visible taglines for the images including: “The Young Black Men Caught,” “Why Do White People Feel,” “Photo Campaign That Celebrates Black” and “Resilience Of Black Men.”
Google Search: “White Women”
The top three rows of the search produced a total of fifteen results. Of those, there were:
Five results featuring women of color
Two results featuring black men
Four featuring white women smiling
Visible taglines for the first five results including: “The Trouble with White Women,” “White Women Need To Talk About Race,” “White Women Aren’t Allies At Work,” “Dear White Women, No More,” and “White Women: It’s Time To Be…”
Other taglines including: “White Women Were Southern Slave Owners,” “Being Exoticised By White Women,” “Black Women Are Paid Less Than White,” and “White Women Benefit Most (from white privilege).”
Google Search: “Black Women”
The top three rows of the search produced a total of sixteen results. Of those, there were:
All sixteen results featuring black women
All sixteen results featuring well-dressed and well-groomed women
Fourteen of the results featuring black women smiling or projecting happiness (the other two project strength)
Visible taglines including: “How Women Have Shaped,” “Studies Suggest Black Women Are More,” “My Heroes Are Black Women,” and “20 Millenial Black-Owned Brands.”
Google Search: “White People”
The top three rows of the search produced a total of fifteen results. Of those, there were:
Seven results featuring people of color
Four additional results featuring white people protesting in solidarity with black people
Just one result featuring a white person smiling (a white woman with dreadlocks)
Visible taglines including: “Dear White People,” “Dear White People (again),” “A Letter To White People,” and another features the deplorable Robin DeAngelo.
Google Search: “Black People”
The top three rows of the search produced a total of fifteen results. Of those, there were:
All fifteen results featuring black people
Eleven results featuring blacks smiling
Visible taglines including: “What’s Life Really Like For Black,” “Being Black In America,” “Racism Grows in Places,” and “Facebook Has Problem With Black People.”
An Analysis of Search Results
An aggregate of the three “white” searches is unflattering for white people. Of the forty-six total results, a full eighteen (39%) of them depict non-whites, sometimes in roles of victimhood but usually in portrayals of independence and success. In and of itself this is not bad, but it is misrepresentative of the intended search, and as we see, is not replicated in the reverse for other searches. For the whites themselves, just seven (15%) were represented in a positive light as indicated by smiling. Put another way, more than twice the amount of blacks were shown than whites in a positive way - in a search designed to produce white results to begin with.
The taglines are especially egregious. Just two taglines suggest something positive (“Employment Helps White Men’s Health” and another is assumed to be positive because it shows white women rallying against the death of a black woman at the hands of police). Two others are neutral in that they advertise white shirts. That leaves a full twenty-four taglines (52%) under an image of white people that states something negative or dangerous about them.
An aggregate of the three “black” searches has a different outcome. Of the forty-eight total results, fully 100% of those results came back with images of black people. In the same vein, none of the taglines suggest that blacks are dangerous or that anything blacks do is harmful to others (as is the case especially with white women, more on that anon).
Amazingly, twenty-nine taglines portray blacks as victims. Despite the overall happiness of blacks as seen through imagery, the titling of the pictures nevertheless contends that blacks must be seen as victims. The taglines refer to the problems being black in America and several refer to their killings (always at the hands of whites or police, not other blacks, even though black homicide victims are killed by other blacks 90% of the time according to the FBI).
As it relates specifically to query of white women, something striking is happening. There is clearly a concerted effort to portray white women as comfortably and cunningly subversive (Where is the feminist outrage, by the way?). Most headlines call out white women for a combination of their insincere efforts at allying with blacks, benefiting from white privilege, and to really hammer home a negative stereotype, fulfilling the role of a “Karen.” In the intersectional rat race, the irony is that a significant majority of all women marchers in January 2017 were white and championing leftist causes. Two immalleable rules in life: You can’t please everyone and the left always consumes its own.
It is obvious that the Marxists at Google have an agenda to pursue, namely that the narrative must be alive and well. White men and women are evil? Check. Blacks are simultaneously victims of white oppression and strong individuals? Check. The more subtle displays arise when looking at the positive and negative dispositions. In Nazi progaganda, Goebbels only had to compare Jews to rats for so long before most Germans went along with the lie. How long before a similar lie is believed here? More concerning, what happens after that?
If rats are disgusting, and Jews are rats…
If racism is bad, and whites are racist...
Comments