Missing White Woman Syndrome in news coverage

Great Debates
41

I already provided a cite - the Declaration of Independence.

Do you not think this is an ideological statement? Or are you claiming the Declaration of Independence “never existed”? Or what?

Because reality did not actually accord with ideology - hence, slaveowners proclaiming as “self-evident truth” that all men are created equal? That eventually, society changed - under the weight of such contracdictions?

Where did the notion that it was “wrong” come from - except from the ideology?

Where did I say that racism did not exist as an ideology?

The ideology - and more, the reality - of slavery and racism was contradictory to the “all men are created equal” stuff. Which I would have thought uncontroversial - except you apparently think it is “crazy”.

You have no idea what I mean by “class” in this context. A hint: a guy pulling himself from an impoversished background to become an influential lawyer and then President is not someone “low class”. This is exactly what the American ideology approves of - social mobility through hard work and smarts.
Show me someone who gets elected President from being a McDonald’s employee. It would never happen.

Uh, isn’t that like exactly what I said? It is considered “wrong” and needed “changing” because it offended against all that “all men are created equal” stuff. In short, it was contrary to the existing ideology derived from basic Enlightenment-Era thinking (never mind that this ideology was drafted by slave-owners).

42

In case you need more “cites”, don’t believe me - believe Martin Luther King, Jr.

It only happens to be the most famous speech in American history …

43

It’s an ideological statement, all right. But it’s illogical to think this statement had anything to do with race, when slaveowners were the authors of this document. Perhaps on paper it is true that all men were considered equal, but only for some values of “men”. And this history of exclusion is as much a part of America’s ideology as its rhetoric about equality under the law.

Reality dictates ideology, not the only way around. Slaveowners proclaimed men were created equal precisely because they didn’t see blacks as men. If they had, then I guarantee you this language would not be in the DoI.

Thought experiment time.

Today, I operate under an ideology that tells me that eating meat is good, proper, and normal. This ideology tells me that not only are animals a natural part of the food chain, but also that I, as an apex predator, am entitled to eat them to my heart’s content without shame or guilt.

Tomorrow, if cattle, chickens, and pigs start to organize themselves and stage dramatic protests showing how harmful the pro-carnivore ideology is to them and their rights as Earthling creatures, I will probably reconsider my beliefs and adopt a vegan lifestyle.

For me to make this turn around, should we assume the lofty ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence have jack shit to do with anything? No. Empathy is a powerful emotion that is available to most people regardless of their culture. You put a cute little calf or chicken in front of camera with tears of intelligent pain in their eyes, and I will gnash my teeth for them. Their struggle will become mine, despite their deliciousness.

The Civil Rights movement was successful because it tapped into people’s moral centers. Most of the hearts they changed had been content to assume all was fine and dandy with the status quo. Just like I plan on eating chicken tonight without blinking an eye, these people had seen nothing wrong with making blacks give up their seats for whites on crowded buses. It wasn’t until the indignity was thrust into their faces that they were able to see the truth. And it wasn’t lofty ideals written in centuries old documents that brought about this awakening. It was simply the act of putting themselves in another person’s shoes.

You are crediting a whole lot to an ideological principle that time and time again has been ignored, to atrocious degrees. Rather than treating it as a given that this ideological principle has existed as a real influence, it is infinitely more logical to conclude that equality is an American value but only when some are more equal than others.

Yes, like Animal Farm.

44

Yes, MLK appealed to the rhetoric in the DoI to hit home his message. Just like every politician uses the DoI or constitution to make their appeals. We eat this stuff up, which is why they serve it up time and time again.

But none of this is evidence that our country historically has prided itself on racial equality.

45

You aren’t responding to my points. Yes, I fully agree it is “illogical”. This illogic is a contradiction - between the high ideals expressed and the sordid reality.

It is exactly this contradiction that fueled the Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement. As I pointed out - if you don’t believe me - maybe you can believe Martin Luther King, Jr.

Un, no? Reality does not dictate ideology. If it did, there would be only one possible ideology, as there is only one reality.

So your claim is that througout recorded history, in which slavery was considered perfectly normal, no-one had empathy, until maybe the 1960s - when they suddenly discovered that they did?

I think my claim is somewhat more credible - namely, that the notions of abolition, and the political notions underlying the US Declaration of Independence both emerged at the end of the 18th century out of the philosophy of the Enlightenment; and that the continued existence of chattel slavery, and also the ideology of racism, became seen increasingly as contradictory to the ideals derived from Enlightenment philosophy - about the inherent nobility and “natural rights” of humanity, and the notion that humans have a positive duty as well as a right to change society for the better.

Ideologies can exist for years, centuries even, and influence a great deal, while being ignored in practice by those in power (Medieval Christianity, anyone?). That doesn’t mean that they have no effect, or that the contradictions between ideology and practice cannot be felt keenly and cause terrible conflicts (Medieval Christianity ended in the Reformation for exactly that reason, among others).

US history is simply another example - the inherent contradicions between the Enlightenment-derived ideology of human freedom and the practice of slavery and racism caused all sorts of conflicts - the Civil War and Civil Rights Movement are examples of that.

46

Woah - are you claiming I said the US historically prided itself on racial equality? :confused::eek:

47

Earlier, you made this statement, when I questioned why you seem to think its inevitable racial discrimination in the media will disappear:

The ideology you’re talking about here is “all men are created equal”, correct? And I adamantly disagree this ideology defines our societal values, past or present. My evidence? The number of American who could care less about racial discrimination because it doesn’t happen to them.

And then you posted this, before I pointed out Jim Crow was based on racial lines not class.

When has this ever been the case, except in the land of hypothetical? Are there historical accounts of poor whites being abused by the police for being uppity with rich black people that I haven’t heard about?

You also posted this:

Racial discrimination has been promulgated and defended in this country since its founding, and it continues to exist. “White is right” is the ideology this flavors our values. So is “Green is right”.

“All men are created equal” is politically correct lip service.

48

does this happen in other countries where whites are a minority ?

49

So since there is only reality, that means I’m right and you’re wrong, correct? Because that is how it is in my reality. And according to you, there’s only one reality. :slight_smile:

Ideology doesn’t arise from a vacuum. People were hungry, so they made eating animals a good and rational thing. People wanted to colonize America, so they made pushing the natives off their lands a good and rational thing. People wanted free labor to build farms and cities, so they made enslavement of blacks a good and rational thing. People wanted a society where “all men were created equal”, so they restricted the definition of men to that of a land-owning white males so they could tell themselves they had an equal society while still reaping the benefits of inequality.

Ideology is dictated by reality, not the other way around.

Slaveowners did not empathize with their slaves. Empathy was reserved for those who were considered sufficiently equal to them. That’s what normalization of a certain behavior does. It dulls your conscience, keeps you from putting yourself in the shoes of the person you’re exploiting. If you see them as a thing instead of person, you pretty much can’t feel empathy towards them. And so you don’t feel all that compelled to treat them as your equal either.

Is this a shocking idea to you? Seriously, I don’t even know how this question follows from what I’ve written.

I agree that changing attitudes brought about by the Enlightenment helped catalyze the abolitionist movement. What I object to is the idea that these principles have been the real impetus behind us confronting racism in the past and confronting it today. Why weren’t these high-minded principles enough to prevent atrocities for occurring in the first place? Obviously they weren’t that all that strong if they could be overridden so easily.

Yes, oppressive policies and practices have been toppled, but you can’t credit this toppling to rhetoric alone.

Do you think we’d still have slavery if our country wasn’t founded under the principle of “all men are considered equal”? What about Jim Crow?

50

Except that only a small minority even owned slaves, and in most of the nation (population -wise) slavery was illegal.

Just because a tiny minority didnt emphasize it doesnt mean others didnt also. The abolitionists? The Underground railroad? Many white people gave their lives to free the slaves.

51

Now you are just plain making stuff up. I never said America prided itself on racial equality.

There is really no point in continuing this discussion, if you are going to supply both sides of it, rather than actually examine what I am writing.

For the last time, the ideology of “all men are created equal” fundamentally contradicts the notion that “Blacks are racially inferior”, and this contradiction is a central fact of American history - leading to all sorts of things, such as civil wars, and the success of the civil rights movement.

People (uncomfortably) hold contradictory ideas all the time. Have you never even heard of “cognitive dissonance”?

I guess you know better than Martin Luther King. :rolleyes:

52

Where did I say you said that?

You’ve insisted that American lip service about equality means that racial discrimination invokes within us a “deep sense of unfairness”. These are your words, man. I’m not making up anything.

53

It depends. If you believe the problem is how media outlets decide which stories to publicize, and which ones they chose to ignore, then your beef is with the media outlets.

If you believe the problem is which stories the public finds interesting, well then, you’ve got a big job ahead of you. Social engineering isn’t easy.

54

This missing white woman was featured in the news this week.

I guess your thread has affected change.

55

Uh, post 44? In your reply to me?

Stating that the rationale behind the Civil Rights movement is the cognitive dissonance between Enlightenment ideology as embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the reality of racial discrimination is not by any conceivable measure the same as “… evidence that our country historically has prided itself on racial equality”. In fact, it is kinda sorta the opposite of that.

Again, as I pointed out, this is not my “crazy” theory. It is Martin Luther King’s. As stated in what is perhaps the single most famous speech in American history.

56

And I didn’t attribute any statements to you in that post. I simply made an assertion about what has not been valued historically.

But its still wrong. The rationale behind the Civil Rights movement was to fight the cruelty of racial discrimination. With or without the ideals espoused in the DoI, a revolution of some kind would have happened. You don’t need an ideology of equality to organize against oppression. History of full of examples of this.

So again, I ask. Do you really think slavery and Jim Crow would have persisted into modernity in the absence of DoI rhetoric about “equality for all”?

57

I see, merely a spontaneous utterance with no possible relevance to what I had said. :dubious:

Very well, I will ignore it as it deserves.

I disagree. Without an ideological background, revolts against oppression tend to be merely suppressed with great ruthlessness, or succeed through violence - see, for example, various slave revolts under the Romans. Almost never has there been an example of rights being granted because of “empathy”. At least, I can think of very few.

You don’t even have to leave the continent of North America for an example of oppression of that sort lasting into relative modernity - look at the history of debt peonage imposed on the aboriginal peoples of central America, leading to a cycle of revolts and suppressions still ongoing today.

Guatemalan Civil War - Wikipedia

Without an appeal to an ideological ground, all the oppressed are left with is violent revolt - which is very unlikely to succeed where the oppressed are a minority. It was King’s genius to understand this, and appeal to non-violence and to a common ground, rather than simply to “empathy” or inciting a hopeless violent revolution. After all, the appeal to empathy alone is generally met with ‘not if it costs us, much’. As one wag put it in relation to slavery in the Caribbean:

“I OWN I am shock’d at the purchase of slaves,
And fear those who buy them and sell them are knaves;
What I hear of their hardships, their tortures, and groans,
Is almost enough to draw pity from stones.
I pity them greatly, but I must be mum,
For how could we do without sugar and rum?”

You don’t get people to agree to fundamental change by appealing to ‘empathy’.

58

Thank God that another missing white woman was found safe at a relative’s home.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/25/police-focus-search-for-california-woman-allegedly-kidnapped-for-ransom-on/

She was probably abducted by that dreaded Spring Break syndrome. It’s not her fault that all these law enforcement agencies were looking for her. But thanks anyway. Another white woman found safe after a weekend of partying, or what ever she was doing.

59

When Boko Haram takes some girls captive it blows up the mediascape and it’s #Bring Back our Girls all over. When a much larger number og boys were previously, and afterwards, likewise captured and murdered, there were no First Lady doing anything and it was mostly collectively ignored. When a bomb goes off, a plane goes down or a ferry sinks or some other accident happens with a lot of dead people, the newsspeaker around here still says: X number killed, including Y number women and children.

Girls are just seen as worth more than boys.

60

Honestly can’t tell if I’m being whooshed here but…

Are you serious? You do get that the ‘women and children’ being called out separately is because they are seen as more vulnerable, not that they are more valued, right?

Regardless you are actually still kind of proving one of the main points which is that ALL human life should be treated equally including in media reporting. But that doesn’t happen because media corrupts. I’m a single white middle aged dude. If I go missing, the media will not give one tiny tiny fuck. My ex, who is an attractive white professional woman, goes missing? That’s more of a story. Know why? Because you will click on that headline, whereas ‘Middle Aged White Dude Missing’ gets no clicks. Actually neither of these stories really deserve any media attention. But the news media today, and therefore where the public focuses its tiny attention span, is all about driving ratings and clicks.