http://www.snopes.com/photos/katrina/looters.asp

The way they refer to "looting" in two different ways is just so wrong.

...unless it's true.

Taking Food and Water is fine, its stuff like TVs thats bad. -

Taking Food and Water is fine, its stuff like TVs thats bad. -
... unless they are using them for personal floatation devices...

... unless they are using them for personal floatation devices...


Tacky tacky tacky :lol:

what's wrong with it?

what's wrong with it?It's the fact that they used the word "looting" for the black man, and "finding" for the white man...when obviously, they were both doing the same thing.

I think the media is frequently racially prejudiced.

... unless they are using them for personal floatation devices...
:lol:

From The Onion (http://www.theonion.com):

White Foragers Report Threat Of Black Looters

NEW ORLEANS—Throughout the Gulf Coast, Caucasian suburbanites attempting to gather food and drink in the shattered wreckage of shopping districts have reported seeing African*Americans "looting snacks and beer from damaged businesses." "I was in the abandoned Wal-Mart gathering an air mattress so I could float out the potato chips, beef jerky, and Budweiser I'd managed to find," said white survivor Lars Wrightson, who had carefully selected foodstuffs whose salt and alcohol content provide protection against contamination. "Then I look up, and I see a whole family of [African-Americans] going straight for the booze. Hell, you could see they had already looted a fortune in diapers." Radio stations still in operation are advising store owners and white people in the affected areas to locate firearms in sporting-goods stores in order to protect themselves against marauding blacks looting gun shops.

;)

sorry, but accusation is really god damn ridiculous.

1. Whoever first pointed that out obviously just had racism on their mind/looking for "racist" things the media does. do you really think you'd be consciously aware upon seeing those that the "finders" WHITE, and the "looter" is *gasp* BLACK. do you really think you would just casually take notice that one guy is black and the other two are white and think hey, that's racist? seriously, that is so ridiculous.

2. How does anyone know that the white people WERE looting, or whatever assumption everyone is making out of this? how does anyone know that the white people DIDN'T just find the groceries lying around instead of looting for them? we weren't there. whoever wrote that obviously was, or was at least given a report by someone who was.

3. Realistically, if they were both "looting", they were BOTH "finding". looting involves looking for things to take and finding them. i'm not just being technical or a smart ass. "looting" is a branch of "finding". finding doesn't necessarily mean looting; but looting does mean finding. it's pretty safe to say that they almost mean the same thing. as far as using both words in the captions, it's called difference in word choice, not necessarily difference in definition.

4. Is the article is hinting that the black man is wrong for looting or that the white people are better than him for "not looting"? no. it's all stated neutrally. thousands of people are doing it to save their lives and that article doesn't show any sign of approval or disapproval of it, nor anything about the individuals other than that they were retrieving groceries.

5. I could probably find you about ten million cases like this that could be misinterpreted as being "racist." oh my god seriously. everything just has to be turned into a racial/discrimination issue.

Bottom line: we don't know what the situation actually was. Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions...

... unless they are using them for personal floatation devices...

:rofl:

Leave it to the US to turn a devistating hurricane into a racial war. :rolleyes: