The first article is called the \"The Truth of Black LivesMatter\" by New York Times and the second article is called \"NewYork Times Defends Folly of Black Lives Matter\" by Jerome Hudson atbreitbart.com. Please provide a half page summary for \"The Truth ofBlack Lives Matter\" and cite what the author is trying to argue.Also please provide a half page summary for \"New York Times DefendsFolly of Black Lives Matter\" and cite what the author is trying toargue. I will provide the links to them down below just in case butI will put the articles here too. MLA format also please.

New York Times \"The Truth of Black LivesMatter\"

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD SEPT. 3, 2015

CreditAlex Nabaum

The Republican Party and its acolytes in the news media aretrying to demonize the protest movement that has sprung up inresponse to the all-too-common police killings of unarmedAfrican-Americans across the country. The intent of the campaign —evident in comments by politicians like Gov. Nikki Haley of SouthCarolina, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsinand Senator Rand Paul ofKentucky — is to cast the phrase “Black Lives Matter” as aninflammatory or even hateful anti-white expression that has nolegitimate place in a civil rights campaign.

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas crystallized this viewwhen he said the other week that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther KingJr., were he alive today, would be “appalled” by the movement’sfocus on the skin color of the unarmed people who aredisproportionately killed in encounters with the police. Thisargument betrays a disturbing indifference to or at best a profoundignorance of history in general and of the civil rights movement inparticular. From the very beginning, the movement focusedunapologetically on bringing an end to state-sanctioned violenceagainst African-Americans and to acts of racial terror very muchlike the one that took nine lives at Emanuel African MethodistEpiscopal Church in Charleston, S.C., in June.

The civil rights movement was intended to make Congress andAmericans confront the fact that African-Americans were beingkilled with impunity for offenses like trying to vote, and had theright to life and to equal protection under the law. The movementsought a cross-racial appeal, but at every step of the way usedexpressly racial terms to describe the death and destruction thatwas visited upon black people because they were black.

Even in the early 20th century, civil rights groups documentedcases in which African-Americans died horrible deaths after beingturned away from hospitals reserved for whites, or were lynched —which meant being hanged, burned or dismembered — in front ofenormous crowds that had gathered to enjoy the sight.

The Charleston church massacre has eerie parallels to the 1963bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. — themost heinous act of that period — which occurred at the height ofthe early civil rights movement. Four black girls were murderedthat Sunday. When Dr. King eulogized them, he did not shy away fromthe fact that the dead had been killed because they were black, bymonstrous men whose leaders fed them “the stale bread of hatred andthe spoiled meat of racism.” He said that the dead “have somethingto say” to a complacent federal government that cut back-room dealswith Southern Dixiecrats, as well as to “every Negro who haspassively accepted the evil system of segregation and who has stoodon the sidelines in a mighty struggle for justice.” Shock over thebombing pushed Congress to pass the Civil Rights Act the followingyear.

During this same period, freedom riders and voting rightsactivists led by the young John Lewis offered themselves up to bebeaten nearly to death, week after week, day after day, in theSouth so that the country would witness Jim Crow brutality andmeaningfully respond to it. This grisly method succeeded in Selma,Ala., in 1965 when scenes of troopers bludgeoning voting rightsdemonstrators compelled a previously hesitant Congress toacknowledge that black people deserved full citizenship, too, andto pass the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Along the way, there wasnever a doubt as to what the struggle was about: securingcitizenship rights for black people who had long been deniedthem.

The “Black Lives Matter” movement focuses on the fact that blackcitizens have long been far more likely than whites to die at thehands of the police, and is of a piece with this history.Demonstrators who chant the phrase are making the same declarationthat voting rights and civil rights activists made a half-centuryago. They are not asserting that black lives are more precious thanwhite lives. They are underlining an indisputable fact — that thelives of black citizens in this country historically have notmattered, and have been discounted and devalued. People who areunacquainted with this history are understandably uncomfortablewith the language of the movement. But politicians who know betterand seek to strip this issue of its racial content and context areacting in bad faith. They are trying to cover up an unpleasanttruth and asking the country to collude with them.

\"New York Times Defends Folly of Black Lives Matter\" byJerome Hudson at breitbart.com

In a 743 word defense of Black Lives Matter, The New YorkTimes editorial board couldn’t bring itself to sanction asingle syllable shaming the grievance group for its growing numberof transgressions.

“The Truth of ‘Black Lives Matter’ flat-out ignores that BlackLives Matter is based on a number of pernicious lies. Chief amongthem is that Michael Brown was executed by Officer Darren Wilson.If that were true, why did an Eric Holder-headed Justice Departmentinvestigation conclude that Michael Brown did not have hishands up when Officer Wilson fired the fatal shots? Forthis group, facts and truth don’t matter. Still, BlackLives Matter demands that Wilson be arrested.

The Times interweaves Martin Luther King, Jr.’s wordsand the purpose of the civil rights movement together in an effortto legitimize and beautify Black Lives Matter’s cause.

The truth, however, is much less romantic. Black Lives Matter isa disgrace to the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr., and the civilrights movement. To compare them is to bastardize 100 years ofAmerican history–and the legitimate hard-fought gains the movementproudly claims.

Martin Luther King, Jr., didn’t mince words when he stated hisdream was that his children live in a world where they were judgedby their “character” and not their “skin.”

I challenge The New York Times, America’s sanctimoniousoverseers, to present a King quote anywhere near the morallydeprived neighborhood of “pigs in a blanket, fry them likebacon.”

Would Rosa Parks stand with Houston area Black Lives Mattersupporter Monica Foy, who said slain Sheriff’s Deputy DarrenGoforth had “creepy perv eyes” and deserved to be executed and shot15 times?

How does The New York Times reconcile this incrediblecontradiction?

The admirable activists making the case for whatever problems ofover-policing that do persist are at odds with a Black Lives Mattermovement that is celebrated and seldom challenged for its habit ofoverindulging in generalities as it constantly convicts all ofAmerica as a devoutly racist place.

Another lie: the Times‘ assertion that unarmed blackpeople “are disproportionately killed in encounters with thepolice” is simply not true and is not substantiated by facts.

It is “an indisputable fact–that the lives of black citizens inthis country historically have not mattered,” the Timescontends. Black Lives Matter, and the Times, for thatmatter, is tied to a tragic American past that no longer lends itsevils to today.

In some sense, black lives do matter more than others.I am black. If I were unarmed and gunned down by police today, mystory would warrant wall-to-wall press coverage. It’s hard toimagine the same outcome if I were white.

This is good and bad.

That America’s foremost news organs commit so much energy tocovering every detail surrounding the death of black people–makingthem household names in the process–is evidence that we are farbetter off as a racially harmonized nation than we were 50 yearsago. And that’s good. But this societal progress wasn’t achieved bydecisive movements like Black Lives Matter.

It’s no accident then that 64 percent of black people prefer thephrase “all lives matter.”

Now for the bad. Such an intense focus on black liveshas normalized a callous disassociation of a victim’s humanity ifhe happens to be white when killed by a cop. Or, as evidenced inHouston–if he happens to be a cop.

It’s as if we have all been shamed into nodding our heads inagreement that we must care less about police-involved shootingsunless the victim is black.

The New York Times’ defense of Black Lives Matter alsomisses the point, and an opportunity. Their editorial came on thesame day that slain Texas Deputy Sheriff Darren Goforth is beinglaid to rest. Their defensive editorial also coincided with thisChicago Tribune headline: “Chicago marks deadliest day bygunfire in more than a decade.” Yet neither far more relevantthreats to black lives warranted a single mention in theTimes’self-serving sermon.

The news stories on cities like Chicago, consumed byblack-on-black carnage resemble Somalia more than America.

Yes, Social Justice Warriors. I just played the black-on-blackcrime card. Why? Because one can be both outraged and motivated tosolve the vexing problem of black criminality while simultaneouslyacting to improve policing in one’s own community.

But Black Lives Matter wants fewer police in minorityneighborhoods. Specifically, they want a “national policyspecifically aimed at redressing the systemic pattern of anti-blacklaw enforcement violence in the United States.”

This is just nonsense and borders satire.

The New York Times is concerned with parsing out theimportance of recognizing the Black Lives Matter movement ahead ofthe fact that all lives matter–yet seem unwilling to recognize thatone of the impacts of the movement has been to increase the threatagainst police officers. So if to just say, “All Lives Matters” isto “cover up an unpleasant truth” as the NYT claims, thenyou also have to admit that embracing Black Lives Matter with noacknowledgement of the associated violence against police is noless of an effort at concealment.

Neither The New York Times nor Black Lives Matter wantsto broaden the parameters of the conversation about the vexingproblems in black precincts. Both groups want a narrow conversationcentered on inflated instances of racism.

If we talk about black poverty, should we also ask how 70percent illegitimacy rates (90 percent in some inner cities) mightcontribute to our malaise? Or do we continue to pretend that thepersistent problem of black poverty is the result of racism anddiscrimination alone?

Black Lives Matter is not a civil rights movement. When a BlackLives Matter spokesman says the phrase “All lives matter” is a“violent statement,” the group itself becomes an affront to ourmost sacred democratic principle: that all men are equal in theeyes of the law.

Thanks, but no thanks. I would rather not be lectured about theperils of civil rights suffrage and police oppression by aneditorial board that’s whiter than a Coldplay concert.

What does it say about The New York Times‘concern for black lives if they–in an editorial about how blacklives matter–decided to completely ignore the countless communitiessuffocated by crime and a gang culture that sends infinitely moreblack bodies to the morgue than police?