Race according to Yahoo

Only one race? Well, not every news agency stoops to only showing half the issue, so here's some equal black and white coverage courtesy of Yahoo and the AFP:

White people FIND groceries.

Black people LOOT groceries.

Do you Yahoo?

That really is sad. I wonder if the copywriter is the same person for both photos...if so then he/she should be shot on sight.... Just kidding.

It's pretty disgusting when even the media promotes racism.

"Sad" is one way to put it. "Totally fucked up" would be another.

Yes I could have used those words...in the end it's all the same...we're a nation of hypocrits.

In a way I'm glad this came out to be discussed, because hidden bias can be very dangerous. It's why I believe in "open bias", so even if someone doesn't like your opinion or prejudice, at least they can't claim you are deceitful or not putting it out on the table for all to see.

I totally agree, Torley! (welcome back btw).

Growing up in the south, I found it much easier to deal with prejudice when it was blatant than the subtle kind. I found subtle discrimination so much harder to deal with because often I wasn't sure if I was being overly sensitive.

I have my fair share of bias and hypocritical opinions...I am human after all.

Not everything is always about race. Unless you were the photographer and saw what happened before the items were found/looted...then you really can't know what actually happened. You are looking at pictures taken after the fact...

Of course not everything is about race. It can be descrimination on social status, financial status, religious preference.

It's really not about the photos, to me they appear to be taken near the same time...of course you can't really tell, I was just judging by water levels on the people trapsing through the flood.

The issue is the semantics used in captioning. Why was one "finding" and the other "looting" when they both appeared to have staples?

Please explain how, in one instance, people burgling a store can be interpreted as "looting" but in another case burgling a store can be "finding."

This should be interesting.

First of all, 67% of the people in New Orleans are African American. Also, I would take a guess that more black people are living in states of poverty than white people. So, it's natural that there would be more black people still in New Orleans, because they didn't have the resources to get out.

So, it's probably much more likely that ANY film taken there would be of black people, not white people.

As to the journalist's differentiating between "looting", and "finding"... I doubt that this was a conscious thing.

Sure, The photographer could have seen the young man go in to the store and come out with a bunch of stuff. The couple could have been wading past the store and things were floating by. They could have came from someones house. Another example... I could go into a store and steal a tv. I could also walk down a street and find a tv on the side of the road. Just saying assumptions are made without knowing everything.

I guess that makes it more special that the white kids are finders versus the other looters.



Probably not, which is why it is funny.

It says that they found it from a local grocery store. If food is floating out of the store, wouldn't it be stealing to take it? If there was a pet store and you were standing in front and caught a dog that escaped from it, it would be stealing if you kept it, right? (Maybe connecting pets and food isn't such a good idea )

I'm not trying to argue that stealing is wrong by any means; I'm just pointing out how a few choice words can connote more than they should. If I'd thought of it, it would have been a lot funnier to accuse you of racism for defending the finders but assuming that the looter was guilty.

And that is EXACTLY the point.

Sometimes I think the the unconscious subtle prejudices are the most harmful. When someone is rude and agressive toward you because of your race, it's much easier (at least it has been for me) to see that the person with the attitude is the person with the bigger problem.

Subtle prejudice tends to push the issue back onto the person who the prejudice is being prepetuated upon. Provoking you to prove that you don't fit the criteria the person with the prejudice has perpetuated on you.

The photograph of the African American man creates a racial issue by using the term "looting" and the photograph of the caucasian couple imply that it is a situational issue by using the word "finding". That is disturbing. The implication is that only the African American man is stealing but that the caucasian couple is surviving. Minority groups, by virtue of being a minority are representatives of that minority to the majority of the population and are frequently unfairly held to greater standards and are more severely criticized when they fail to meet those standards as a whole.

Yep. Neither photo actually shows a crime being committed; so even if it is just dramatic narration, it does reveal something about the narrator.

Actually, it reveals nothing. The photos were taken by 2 different people for 2 different news agencies. One AP, the other AFP. Each captioned independently of the other. More info at Snopes.com:

It seems to me that there is no intent on the part of the news agencies or Yahoo to promote any racist agenda, but there is a tendency to leap to conclusions on the part of many readers.

BREAKING NEWS....

Just 2 mintues ago on CNN...Wolf Blitzer said the following and I quote,"Those poor people are just so poor and so black."

My roommate and I turned around and looked at each other and had that, "did he just say that look?"

Thank You Ursula for posting that information.

Well, he's not on Fox news, so it's only about a 50/50 chance that he'll be put on the spot for it I guess..we'll see.

It was fun while it lasted.

I wonder how black "so" black is? I want to see some gradient scales here, dammit.

The funny part of this is that, I don't even know what the hell he was talking about. Does that even make any sense to anyone? I mean, besides people named "Wolf"?

Maybe he meant that they have a wicked sense of humor.

Perhaps he meant to say "so poor and so lacking"? LOL nah..