Your Daily Tripe Alert...

Short post, this one. Just to point out a bit of foolishness on the Freakonomics Blog. Levitt apparently co-authored a study with some other economists concerning the "plight" of the mixed-race child. It's a Laugher (not the curve).

First off, let's look at that title: "The Plight of Mixed Race Adolescents". "Plight"? Really? One shudders at the thought of the teeming masses of latte-skinned youngin's yearning to walk tall and breathe free, but held back by their mixed-race (which, apparently, Levitt, et al, take to mean solely Black-White mix, more on that in a second) heritage. O, Lord, how many are the foes of these poor miscegenated whelps?

Next, Levitt's conception of race and race relations seems... oh, this is hard to categorize... dumb? There is, of course, the aforementioned assumption that "mixed-race" means Black-White. Pardon me, but isn't there a whole host of racial representations in America? Don't we have people here from all corners of the globe and of every hue? Now, this isn't to say such ideas are particular to Levitt and crew. No, America seems unable to move past a binary representation of "race". But, regardless, you'd think if they're going to attempt to comment on racial relations, they'd at least acknowledge that there are more than two colors. Anyway...

The paper in question gives us other laughers, such as the implication that "interracial intimacy" began some time in the early twentieth century, or that it was slow to grow up until the Civil Rights Movement. Now, granted, with social liberalization there has been an expansion in the rate of mixed-race births. Fine. But let's not assume that just because people weren't categorized as interracial, that means they were "purebreeds" of whatever color. I mean, who doesn't have a "Cherokee Princess" somewhere in their ancestry?

All in all, the methodology is likely as sound as a study such as this can be. But can sound methodology make up for conceptual stupidity? We think not...