Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. . . basically no one pays attention to it simply because if she's black she is a typical statistic by living in da hood. It's a topic or issue that makes one go hummmmmm? So who's lives are more valuable? It's obvious, don't you agree?
Hummmmmm . . . well let me see. Who's life is more valuable?
If I'm driving a fire truck and come to the corner. To the right is 'da hood' with a public housing house burning down. To the left is a multi-million dollar house burning down. Where do I go?
Who's life is more valuable? Well the people burning in 'da hood' are living in 'da hood' for a reason. They are non-producers. They lack the intellectual capacity, ability or inclination to produce much more than what they need to survive, if that much.
Who's life is more valuable? The people living in the multi-million dollar house are living in that house for a reason. They are producers. They are the one's paying for the public housing. They know how to start and/or run a business or they are physicians, etc.
Who's life is more valuable? The people to the right are 'can't do'. The people on the left are 'can do'. Which people to I want to be part of society? If I had to start over and I was building a society from scratch, which people would I pick?
Whose life is more valuable . . . indeed! Yeah, it's obvious as you say. It's a typical liberal platitude. 'Everyone's life has equal value.' What utter nonsense. Ok, you go ahead and take the 'da hood' to rebuild your society. I'll take the folks in the muti-million dollar houses. The problem is, who is going to pay to keep your folks alive without anyone with the ability to produce?
Everytime I see the headline of this thread I feel it is not true...
Tyra Banks,, Oprah, Beyonce, etc...all black woma are so famous and making a lot of money and both white and black people adore them....so if you think the media is not interested in black woman there must be another reason...
IMO the reason has to do with the family members of the vanished black person who doesn't want their garbadge to come out, otherwise why don't they try a little bit more to get attention.
You can see how much garbadge come up about the white trash family of Haley Cummings...this family didn't and still doesn't care about their past to be broadcast on tv...not every family wants to go thorugh this and many choose to stay out of the lime light an start complining lateron that they didn't get attention.
I watch a lot of investigated programs, many persons are black and it seems that most family members think the person was the best person ever, till more and more is found out by the cops and many times the person has a double life, of either drugs, a girlfriend on the side, etc...just like with other people in crime....
UNFORTUNATELY, the media thinks that it's not news worthy when that black female is found dead or kidnapped because she lives in the hood. People sort of expect it to happen if she lives in da hood. Therefore, it's not as shocking as some upper middle class college white (or in this case the asian woman who came up missing and now found dead). Heck I never see the media report about a middle class black woman, let alone one who's upper middle class getting murdered. The media tends to stick to the stereotypical inner city black woman with 5 kids murdered by her baby daddy or by her crack seller.
Being a black male, I never could understand that until a news producer was quite candid about this very topic and said that when black women come up missing it's not news worthy or shocking to grant the attention--basically no one pays attention to it simply because if she's black she is a typical statistic by living in da hood. It's a topic or issue that makes one go hummmmmm? So who's lives are more valuable? It's obvious, don't you agree?
I understand where you're coming from. However, I think it has more to do with socioeconomic status than race, which is still wrong. If it was a black girl going to Yale and had been found murdered I think she would have been in the news every bit as much as the unfortunate young lady that is now in the news.
UNFORTUNATELY, the media thinks that it's not news worthy when that black female is found dead or kidnapped because she lives in the hood. People sort of expect it to happen if she lives in da hood. Therefore, it's not as shocking as some upper middle class college white (or in this case the asian woman who came up missing and now found dead). Heck I never see the media report about a middle class black woman, let alone one who's upper middle class getting murdered. The media tends to stick to the stereotypical inner city black woman with 5 kids murdered by her baby daddy or by her crack seller.
Being a black male, I never could understand that until a news producer was quite candid about this very topic and said that when black women come up missing it's not news worthy or shocking to grant the attention--basically no one pays attention to it simply because if she's black she is a typical statistic by living in da hood. It's a topic or issue that makes one go hummmmmm? So who's lives are more valuable? It's obvious, don't you agree?
Far be it for me to defend the media but there are factors in this case that make it newsworthy. For one, she was to be married on Sunday. That fact alone makes the case interesting. Moreover, apparently she had written an article about the steps that women on campus need to take to keep themselves safe. So there is a certain irony to the story. And the fact that it involved an ivy league school adds some viewer and reader interest. I don't discount the racial angle entirely but you'll have to admit this case has a lot of human interest components to it.
Unfortunately, the successful, hardworking, middle to upper class blacks, who should be the role models, get the brunt of the disrespect. They're treated like they're traitors to the race and accused of being "white". Who gets the admiration instead...OJ Simpson, Mike Tyson, some mindless athlete or rapper, probably with a prison record.
Most black leaders foster this mentality and deliberately act to reduce their own race to mere statistics. It's what keeps them in positions of power. It's much easier to maintain control over a society that is taught to believe that they're sub-par and need to be reinforced by racial stereotypes, than it would be to exist on an equal level with decent hardworking, independent people.
Change your role models and the perception of the whole race would change. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton only reinforce negative traits.
Unfortunately, the successful, hardworking, middle to upper class blacks, who should be the role models, get the brunt of the disrespect. They're treated like they're traitors to the race and accused of being "white". Who gets the admiration instead...OJ Simpson, Mike Tyson, some mindless athlete or rapper, probably with a prison record.
Most black leaders foster this mentality and deliberately act to reduce their own race to mere statistics. It's what keeps them in positions of power. It's much easier to maintain control over a society that is taught to believe that they're sub-par and need to be reinforced by racial stereotypes, than it would be to exist on an equal level with decent hardworking, independent people.
Change your role models and the perception of the whole race would change. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton only reinforce negative traits.
You know, your post does have valid points, though, I have to disagree with your post on some points. Yes, I believe that the Al Sharptons and the Jesse Jacksons is what the black race does not need. My opinion of Al Sharpton will always be marred by Tawanna Brawley. Jesse Jackson, while effective in the 60s, has shown by his comments about Obama that he is the exact type of black person that divides -- the black people that call other black people "uppity" and "uncle Toms" because they choose to buck the stereotype. At the same time, many black people that I know don't consider those two to be their leaders. They are largely self appointed and the media has branded them as the voice of Black America. It's a shame that these two caricatures are considered by other races to represent blacks as a whole just because they are so vocal.
I also disagree that people's perception of Blacks would change if the "role models" changed. It's demonstrated by the posts on this board, for example. There are those who are prejudiced, and nothing is going to change them.
Far be it for me to defend the media but there are factors in this case that make it newsworthy. For one, she was to be married on Sunday. That fact alone makes the case interesting. Moreover, apparently she had written an article about the steps that women on campus need to take to keep themselves safe. So there is a certain irony to the story. And the fact that it involved an ivy league school adds some viewer and reader interest. I don't discount the racial angle entirely but you'll have to admit this case has a lot of human interest components to it.
Correct it is more than just the race that is making a case interesting...
Hummmmmm . . . well let me see. Who's life is more valuable?
If I'm driving a fire truck and come to the corner. To the right is 'da hood' with a public housing house burning down. To the left is a multi-million dollar house burning down. Where do I go?
Who's life is more valuable? Well the people burning in 'da hood' are living in 'da hood' for a reason. They are non-producers. They lack the intellectual capacity, ability or inclination to produce much more than what they need to survive, if that much.
Who's life is more valuable? The people living in the multi-million dollar house are living in that house for a reason. They are producers. They are the one's paying for the public housing. They know how to start and/or run a business or they are physicians, etc.
Who's life is more valuable? The people to the right are 'can't do'. The people on the left are 'can do'. Which people to I want to be part of society? If I had to start over and I was building a society from scratch, which people would I pick?
Whose life is more valuable . . . indeed! Yeah, it's obvious as you say. It's a typical liberal platitude. 'Everyone's life has equal value.' What utter nonsense. Ok, you go ahead and take the 'da hood' to rebuild your society. I'll take the folks in the muti-million dollar houses. The problem is, who is going to pay to keep your folks alive without anyone with the ability to produce?
- Reel
JK Rowling was on welfare at one point in her life....is she a non-productive person?
On the flipside, Bernie Madoff was quite productive in the activities that allowed him to afford several multi-million dollar properties.....is he a better person because he was financially productive (so to speak)?
Just being "Reel" but I'm sure that Madoff would be much more "your people" right
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
