The Newsroom

So what if most of the victims of 'Katrina' are black?

(September 2005)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
TW
Time Warp
archiveTV posted:
time_warp posted:
archiveTV posted:
Brekkie Boy posted:
It says alot about the US networks as well.

Some rapper (Kayne West) slagged off Bush at a televised benefit concert for not doing enough as he doesn't care about black people.

He also added that broadcasters were describing footage of black people breaking into stores as "looting", but referring to white people as "looking for food".

NBC cut away from Kayne West to comedian Chris Tucker

Though the comments went out live on the East-coast, they were cut out of the delayed broadcast on the West coast.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4210808.stm


Yea. So much for free speech.


Oh for goodness sake. I very much doubt they intended to be "racist". The point is not what words are used, as anybody with common sense will know that people "looting" and people "finding food in grocery stores" are the same thing. The issue is that some people believe that the President is not doing as much as he could because black citizens are stranded, another fact I find pathetic. The President was elected for a reason; he would have taken exactly the same actions should the population in question have been majorly white. This is just people taking the view that "because 60% of the stranded are black, and not enough is being done, he must be racist". Let us not forget that Mr. Bush has just pumped government aid into the project, as well as returning early from vacation and entering the affected areas.


Off course they didn't intend to be racist. That's the whole point. It happens automatically. It's what is meant by institutionalized racism. It's why picture editors seeing a black person taking food from a shop call it looting and seeing a white person call it finding.

The difference in the two captions to those pictures I actually find one of the most shocking things about the whole event.


That's my whole point - that obviously wasn't intentional. Those words would have been put the other way round and it would make no difference. As I have said, the two mean the same thing, and anyone not being picky would gather that - it's just people perceiving it as being racist.
TV
archiveTV
time_warp posted:
archiveTV posted:
time_warp posted:
archiveTV posted:
Brekkie Boy posted:
It says alot about the US networks as well.

Some rapper (Kayne West) slagged off Bush at a televised benefit concert for not doing enough as he doesn't care about black people.

He also added that broadcasters were describing footage of black people breaking into stores as "looting", but referring to white people as "looking for food".

NBC cut away from Kayne West to comedian Chris Tucker

Though the comments went out live on the East-coast, they were cut out of the delayed broadcast on the West coast.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/4210808.stm


Yea. So much for free speech.


Oh for goodness sake. I very much doubt they intended to be "racist". The point is not what words are used, as anybody with common sense will know that people "looting" and people "finding food in grocery stores" are the same thing. The issue is that some people believe that the President is not doing as much as he could because black citizens are stranded, another fact I find pathetic. The President was elected for a reason; he would have taken exactly the same actions should the population in question have been majorly white. This is just people taking the view that "because 60% of the stranded are black, and not enough is being done, he must be racist". Let us not forget that Mr. Bush has just pumped government aid into the project, as well as returning early from vacation and entering the affected areas.


Off course they didn't intend to be racist. That's the whole point. It happens automatically. It's what is meant by institutionalized racism. It's why picture editors seeing a black person taking food from a shop call it looting and seeing a white person call it finding.

The difference in the two captions to those pictures I actually find one of the most shocking things about the whole event.


That's my whole point - that obviously wasn't intentional. Those words would have been put the other way round and it would make no difference. As I have said, the two mean the same thing, and anyone not being picky would gather that - it's just people perceiving it as being racist.


And thats my whole point. It would not have been put the other way around. It was only put that way because of the colour of the persons involved. The fact it was done sub consciously makes it worse not better
TW
Time Warp
archiveTV posted:
It would not have been put the other way around. It was only put that way because of the colour of the persons involved.


So you're saying these broadcasters had racist motives. I don't know on what grounds you can assume that.
TV
archiveTV
time_warp posted:
archiveTV posted:
It would not have been put the other way around. It was only put that way because of the colour of the persons involved.


So you're saying these broadcasters had racist motives. I don't know on what grounds you can assume that.


You really don't get it do you?

Do you remember Stephen Lawrence. How the Police didn't investigate his murder properly because they assumed, because he was black, it must be some kind of gang feud.

It's the same thing. People don't intend to be racist, but their upbringing and conditioning lead them to a form of subconscious racism.
TW
Time Warp
Actually, I do. You're just not reading what I am saying, just posting the contrary, and then saying "that's my point". Go and watch some news, realise the facts and stop being so picky.

Anyway, I can bother with these childish arguments no longer.
NG
noggin Founding member
time_warp posted:
archiveTV posted:
It would not have been put the other way around. It was only put that way because of the colour of the persons involved.


So you're saying these broadcasters had racist motives. I don't know on what grounds you can assume that.


I think the point isn't the intent - more the tacit assumption. To a degree it is racism by default rather than anything specific - almost institutionalised racism.

You show white people taking food from a store and infer one thing, but you show black people doing something identical, and people will infer something else.

Newer posts