Quote:
Originally posted by RACooper
I'm not going to hop on the "obvious example or racism" bandwagon just yet, for three reasons:
One - two different sources, so two different guidelines for reporting on the disaster.
Two - different post times, were again changes in reporting could have been dictated as the scope of the disaster unfolds.
Three - don't know who the reports are, afterall they could be "black" or "white" or something else... and until this is know, or any of these others are know it won't be possible to place these pictures in context.
|
The first point you make is true; however, further digging reveals that one of the sources (AFP I think) had other pictures in which the African-American subjects were referred to as "looters" while that one picture of whites said they "found" their supplies. However . . . the photographer came forward and said that in that particular instance, the whites in the photograph had literally found the supplies they were carrying -- they had not looted them. So I don't think we can infer much from that one particular incident.
Still, I think it's pretty obvious that there's been a racial bias in all of this. Somebody in the other Hurricane Katrina thread (lifesaver?) said that he didn't think that it would have taken this long to rescue these people if they had been white. I have to agree. And I think that part of the reason that these people remaining in New Orleans have been portrayed so savagely is so that we can all feel better about the fact that they haven't been rescued yet. I know it's been proven time and time again on GC that I have a rather Marxist view of morality that most of you don't share -- but why aren't more people questioning what kind of poverty you would have to live in that would drive you to the point where you're willing to risk your life to acquire TVs and jewelry when you might not even have a house?