Remember, white people “find” things; black people “loot”.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

deep

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Apr 11, 2002
Messages
28,598
Location
A far distance down.
Photo number one: “Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store”.

Photo number two: “A young man walks through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store”.

Two guesses as to the relative melanin levels of “two residents” and “a young man”.

Remember, white people “find” things; black people “loot”.




capt.sge.cyn78.300805074130.photo01.photo.default-268x384.jpg

Two residents wade through chest-deep water after finding bread and soda from a local grocery store after Hurricane Katrina came through the area in New Orleans, Louisiana.(AFP/Getty Images/Chris Graythen)

capt.ladm10208301530.hurricane_katrina_ladm102.jpg

A young man walks through chest deep flood water after looting a grocery store in New Orleans on Tuesday, Aug. 30, 2005. Flood waters continue to rise in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina did extensive damage when it made landfall on Monday. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)
 
Now who gives these descriptions; if it was the same person then sure I think it is an example of subtle racism, if it was different people then the threshold of what constitutes looting to them is a variable.
 
Since they're both taking food I'd definitely agree, that's blatant racism :down:

Like someone said on CNN last night, taking food and water is completely understandable, not anything else unless it is a necessity. Racism like that by the media however is not understandable or acceptable.
 
Oh this is great! I think you've hit it right on the nail here.

Melon
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
perhaps if these captions were put together by the same people you might be on to a sliver of a point.



institutional bias?

sorry, it's the same picture, both people with food, only different races. does it matter if the headlines came from different people? they reflect the reality of how white eyes view the situation.
 
Oh Brother, PCism run Amuck. I guess no one really knows who "Found" or looted anything. Although I think anyone who is wading through water above their waist is merely trying to survive.
 
or perhaps one schmuck with a computer decided to use the word find, and one other schmuck diecided to use the word loot

or perhaps they decided to use the word loot because the one guy is carrying a garbage bag full of stuff as opposed to one loaf of bread

or perhaps the people who took these pictures witnessed the one man ransacking through a store while the other two got thre bread through other means... perhaps they found a store that was actually operating.

or perhaps the white people looted the things in their hands and the black man was taking stuff from his house and moving to dry land... or vice versa.

the problem with photographs is that they can be misleading. they do not tell the whole story... they do not show the events leading up to that single milisecond in time capture in the image.

so yea... let's calm down before we start labeling people racist over these pictures.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
or perhaps one schmuck with a computer decided to use the word find, and one other schmuck diecided to use the word loot

or perhaps they decided to use the word loot because the one guy is carrying a garbage bag full of stuff as opposed to one loaf of bread

or perhaps the people who took these pictures witnessed the one man ransacking through a store while the other two got thre bread through other means... perhaps they found a store that was actually operating.

or perhaps the white people looted the things in their hands and the black man was taking stuff from his house and moving to dry land... or vice versa.

the problem with photographs is that they can be misleading. they do not tell the whole story... they do not show the events leading up to that single milisecond in time capture in the image.

so yea... let's calm down before we start labeling people racist over these pictures.



or perhaps in the eyes of the AP, white people find and black people loot.

it's as plausible an explanation as any you've offered, and if you've ever worked in media, you know how subjective these things are, and how out-of-context they can be taken; but you also know the linguistic bias in much news reporting -- in Europe, they're "ethnic groups;" in Africa, they're "tribes." it plagues media at all levels, and this situation appears much more symptomatic of this problem rather than the myriad excuses you've offered.
 
How do we know who wrote the caption? If it was a black person that described the looting would this even be an issue?

It's pretty easy to claim racism when you don't know any of the facts.
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
so yea... let's calm down before we start labeling people racist over these pictures.

but patterns emerge,

LaToyia Figueroa and Lacey Petersen (who the hell is LaToyia Figueroa many likely ask).

Erica Pratt and Elizabeth Smart (who the hell is Erica Pratt many likely ask).

in these 4 cases we find 2 different broadly defined criminal activities, the first being the murder of a pregnant woman by someone very close to her and the second being the abduction of a young girl followed by their escape. each of these instances occurred around the same time as its comparable.

the cases of lacey petersen and elizabeth smart garnered international media attention. the cases of latoyia figueroa and erica pratt only got passing notice (based on my observation).

are these instances conclusive?
of course not, few things are.

is it worthy of discussion?
certainly.

in the case of these photographs, as Irvine pointed out, one could suspect institutional bias. based on their original address, deep linked to them from the same site so it is a possibility. the goal isn't to accuse anyone of racism but to see how we assign labels and identities to people. in other words, how do we 'make up' people.
 
I think the captioning of these photographs is entirely premature. We don't know where any of that stuff came from, or how it was acquired.

And if you're in the middle of a city that has no tap water, no food, no stores open to sell you food and water, the relief convoys haven't arrived yet, etc., you've got a right to get food and water however you can.

But if I see you comin' out that store toting a stereo or and iPod, it's looting no matter what color you are.

But basically, I think it's way to early to shout "looter" on the basis of a photograph and whoever does is sticking their foot in their mouth...all the way to the knee.
 
I was also going to bring up the kidnapping cases of the media only giving coverage to the white, upper middle class women and not the black women who had gone missing. :tsk:


It's sad, all of the "looting" going on, but right now I think we can all agree that it's a "survival of the fittest" mentality there and we'd be hard pressed not to do the same if we were in the same situation.
 
As someone who has studied and worked in media, "stereotyping" is prevalent, even if unintentional a lot of the time. No one is saying that these people are blatantly racist, but when you have two patently different captions, you're forced to ask questions.

What is the difference between scavenging for survival and looting?

Melon
 
LarryMullen's_POPAngel said:
It's sad, all of the "looting" going on, but right now I think we can all agree that it's a "survival of the fittest" mentality there and we'd be hard pressed not to do the same if we were in the same situation.

Particularly when you're dealing with goods that are merely going to be written off as a loss and compensated by insurance, whether looted or left on the shelves. What company is going to sell storm damaged goods?

Melon
 
melon said:


Particularly when you're dealing with goods that are merely going to be written off as a loss and compensated by insurance, whether looted or left on the shelves. What company is going to sell storm damaged goods?

Melon


So taking TVs, bikes, and other non-food items is ok because it's survival of the fittest or because a store will write it off? Maybe I should go down there to pick up a plasma tv if that's the type of logic used by people.
 
It's either found or looted? Looted has a negative and illegal meaning behind it, found implies innocence.

Let's face it, it doesn't matter how these individuals obtained these items, it's a 99% chance they didn't pay for them. So what's the difference? Why give one individual a negative connotation?

It's funny how people bring up "survival" now but in another thread are calling for us to go after them ruthlessly.:huh:
 
randhail said:



So taking TVs, bikes, and other non-food items is ok because it's survival of the fittest or because a store will write it off? Maybe I should go down there to pick up a plasma tv if that's the type of logic used by people.

Good luck getting a plasma TV to work after it's sumerged under water...
 
randhail said:
So taking TVs, bikes, and other non-food items is ok because it's survival of the fittest or because a store will write it off? Maybe I should go down there to pick up a plasma tv if that's the type of logic used by people.

Go right ahead. What store will sell a plasma TV even with the threat of water damage? If it isn't looted, it will end up in the landfill at the end of the day.

Of course, I know it's a matter of "principle" a lot of the time, so the obligatory "outrage" from police is to be expected, even if it's silly.

Melon
 
Headache is right though; this is almost certainly two completely different copy editors in two completely different AP bureaus in two completely different regions of the country. In such a case, it's completely subjective as to what the copy editor wants to write (cause it's not the photographer that writes the captions). Perhaps one copy editor assumes that anyone walking through the streets/rivers of New Orleans carrying things has looted, and writes the word "looted" in the caption. Perhaps the other copy editor does not want to assume the worst and writes "found". And the pictures they just happened to line up with are of a black man and a white couple, respectively.

Or maybe the photographer observed the white couple actually finding said bread and told that to the copy editor, while the other photographer (2 different photographers took these pictures) told the copy editor that he directly observed this black man breaking into a store and taking the food.

It could be as simple as the fact that the white people saw a loaf of bread floating down the street/river, having been carried off by the current and snatched it up. Just because they have it does not automatically mean that they looted it. I realize that works the other way too.

But in all probability we should not immediately assume that this is overt racism. News media persons are not automatically racist. We don't know any of the facts or context behind these photographs, nor do we know anything about the author(s) of these captions. So let's calm down before we start tossing the "racist" label around everywhere without knowing anything.

EDIT: And now that I go back and look at the images, they aren't even taken by the same news agency. The first photo was taken by the Associated Press Photo agency, and the second one was taken by AFP/Getty Images. So the captions weren't written by the same copy editor, and they weren't even written by the same news agency. So can it people. There's no fine line between "find" and "loot". It's all subjective.
 
Last edited:
DaveC said:
So can it people. There's no fine line between "find" and "loot". It's all subjective.

I think that's the whole point being made. Why would one assume illegal activity and the other very innocent activity?

You know what they say about people who assume...
 
DaveC said:
Headache is right though; this is almost certainly two completely different copy editors in two completely different AP bureaus in two completely different regions of the country. In such a case, it's completely subjective as to what the copy editor wants to write (cause it's not the photographer that writes the captions). Perhaps one copy editor assumes that anyone walking through the streets/rivers of New Orleans carrying things has looted, and writes the word "looted" in the caption. Perhaps the other copy editor does not want to assume the worst and writes "found". And the pictures they just happened to line up with are of a black man and a white couple, respectively.



so what you're saying, essentially, is that white skin causes you to assume one set of circumstance, and that black skin causes you to assume another.
 
I'm saying that it could just be the verbiage that the copy editors wanted to use.

If the copy editors had gotten the opposite pictures, who's to say that the white couple wouldn't have looted the store and the black guy found the soda? That's what I mean. It could just be the language the copy editor arbitrarily put in (or was told to put in - that's not outside the realm of possibility).

We're all jumping to a pretty large conclusion here (all news media is racist), and I say we need more hard facts before making any kind of decision.
 
DaveC said:
We're all jumping to a pretty large conclusion here (all news media is racist), and I say we need more hard facts before making any kind of decision.

All media, news media included, is stereotypical. That means, at some times, it's racist. Other times, it's sexist or homophobic. It's always sensational, but generally not intentional.

Melon
 
melon said:


All media, news media included, is stereotypical. That means, at some times, it's racist. Other times, it's sexist or homophobic. It's always sensational, but generally not intentional.

Melon

That's a pretty big assumption. Show me some hard facts.
 
DaveC said:
That's a pretty big assumption. Show me some hard facts.

You're asking the wrong question. This is all in the realm of theory and ideological criticism, which is more philosophy than "hard facts." I spent a year or so studying this, so to expect me to summarize all that in one post is unrealistic.

But start opening your eyes. Terri Shiavo got months of non-stop coverage and sympathy, while a black woman's child in a persistent vegetative state got barely a footnote in the media, when the hospital and the court system upheld a Texas state law (signed by "pro-life" George W. Bush when he was governor of Texas) that allowed hospitals to unplug Medicaid patients that are deemed "hopeless." I guess her protests weren't important enough.

Or how about all the people that go missing on a regular basis? Why is it only the pretty white women that get the 24/7 media coverage? How is Natalee Holloway's disappearance any different from the other people who have gone missing in the meantime?

Or how about American TV sitcoms? All men are small-minded morons who have no business being a father. The wife, inevitably, acts as the responsible, know-everything housewife and she ends up "mothering" everyone in the house, including her "husband." Not only could it be argued that it's insulting to working women, but it's also insulting to the men that actually are good parents and are responsible. But hey...when it comes to "divorce court," men are assumed to be as dopey as their sitcom counterparts, and the only thing they're good for is child support checks.

Melon
 
DaveC said:


That's a pretty big assumption. Show me some hard facts.


Isn't it obvious?


You tell me how many stories there are on the nightly news dealing with the abductions/killings of human beings of minority. You tell me how much coverage Robert Blake's trial got as opposed to OJ or Michael Jackson?

I think if you take a good look at any daily paper you can see blatant racism every single day.


Edit: I stand by my statement, provided that melon did a much better job of explaining it than I just did. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom