Asymmetrical Information

You have a link problem -- the first two links point to the same story.

I don't think that race and class are as neatly separable as you seem to think. At the very least, it seems more than one story from NJ should be offered to support that assumption.

I'm not going to say consider the source, but...

Jane writes:

>>>But for too many blacks in this country, that's a distinction without a difference. And there's no excuse for letting these boys off without punishing them."

I totally agree with you here. I'm not alone in the opinion that black life in America is simply not valued as highly as white life. This is reflected not only in the court system, but in law enforcement strategies and media coverage.

The Tamika Houston case is prominent example of media inequity.

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/bawnews/bawcommentary/mathis502

Also, look at the "outrage, protest and media coverage" of Sun Hudson vs. Terri Shiavo.

My opinion on the lower value of "black life" is easily validated in US adoption statistics.

>>>The children who are in the greatest demand are also in the shortest supply. Those who want to adopt healthy white babies in the US may wait as long as five years, agencies say. In contrast, they add, the waiting for African-Americans is often measured in weeks and months, especially for baby boys.

The demand for biracial (black/white) babies falls in between, and the wait reflects this. The waiting period for a biracial girl can be more than a year.

It's also the case that adopting a white baby costs more than adopting a black or biracial one.

Adoption fees for healthy Caucasian babies can be as high as $40,000, according to the US Department of Health and Human Services. For biracial babies, the cost is about $18,000. For African-American newborns, it ranges from $10,000 to $12,000, agencies say."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1027/p11s01-lifp.html

If you dig deeply enough into this case, Jane you'll find RACISM is at the root of all of these inequities, IMHO.

--Cobra

As I remember the New Jersey case, the claim was the girl was legally incapable of giving consent, not that she was forcibly assaulted.

A better analogy would be the Rukaj, Viscome case (Harrison NY, April 23, 2002) in which Rukaj fatally injured Viscome with a single punch at a teenage drinking party. Prompt medical attention was not sought and the some of those present initially lied about what happened. Nevertheless no one (including Rukaj) received any substantial punishment.

This post describes the incident as one where "four young white men ... beat up a mentally challenged black man...". However, reading the actual story it says that one white man threw a punch at the black man and the black man fell and hit his head, resulting in a concussion. Then, the four white men dumped the black man in a field rather than taking him for medical attention.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't really fit the description of "four white guys beating up a black man". To say otherwise is a bit of an exaggeration, to say the least.

That said, I think the real story here is not about white racism but rather is about the power of being wealthy. If the four white guys had been lower middle class, they probably would have gotten a much stiffer sentence. Furthermore, it it were four college-bound black guys who abused a mentally-challenged white, they would have gotten similar lienient sentences.

Society makes determinations about whose life is more valuable based on what contributions (monetary and otherwise) a person has or will make to that society. Young, intelligent people from wealth families will likely grow up to become professionals providing services to society and paying taxes. Mentally retarded people, black or white, do not. It may not be a pretty fact, but that is the calculation society makes.

To believe that each life is precious and has has intrinsic value and worth is a religious belief born from a spiritual perspective, not a rational one. For those who want to eradicate religion from the public square, please consider all the ramifications of that action.

Cobra - Not to discount the rest of your point, but ...adopting a black baby boy takes WEEKS? What agency is this? I know someone who just finalized an adoption of a black baby (girl, but they would have taken either) and they were waiting for upwards of a year.

About adoption: there is simply not enough information provided to conclude racism. Look, it's simply natural that parents want to adopt children that look something like them. A black child with white parents, or vice versa, is obviously not their biological child. I do not believe it is necessarily bigoted for parents to want a child that looks something like them. I applaud those who do not, but do not condemn those who do.

From an economics point of view, I suspect that the cost/time involved in adopting a white baby reflects simple supply and demand: more white parents wishing to adopt compared with the actual supply of white babies available. Same goes for black parents, who are less likely to want to adopt a white baby. Now, if you can show that, say, the demand for white babies exceeds the relative number of white couples seeking to adopt, you will have proved your point.

This reminds me of the claim, made here in Texas, that African Americans are underrepresented in our judiciary, because the percentage of such judges is lower than the percentage in the populace. The trouble with that reasoning is that it is using the wrong population: compared with the percentage of African American *attorneys* (i.e., the group eligible to be judges), the judiciary is actually *over* represented. Therefore the argument is invalid. (Now, the argument that black *attorneys* are underrepresented may be a valid one, but that's a different issue.)

Furthermore, if it were four college-bound black guys who abused a mentally-challenged white, they would have gotten similar lenient sentences.

Baloney. It wouldn't have mattered a tinker's damn whether those four black guys were bound for Harvard, Yale, Oxford and the Sorbonne. It would have been taken as confirmation of inherent black pathology, and punished as such.

Your fantasy of equivalent treatment evaporates when you look at, for example, the vast disparity in coverage between white runaway bride Jennifer Wilbanks and black missing bride Stacy-Ann Sappleton, who might have been found before she was murdered had the national media accorded her a fraction of the bandwidth they wasted on Wilbanks.

Mike writes:

>>>Look, it's simply natural that parents want to adopt children that look something like them. A black child with white parents, or vice versa, is obviously not their biological child. I do not believe it is necessarily bigoted for parents to want a child that looks something like them. I applaud those who do not, but do not condemn those who do."

Now, on it's face, your comments sound reasonable.
Dig a little deeper, Mike...replace some subjects.

"Look, it's simply natural that want to that look something like them."

The only resemblance to the parents in many cases IS skin color. In fact, the article I posted was focused on the rise of African American children being adopted by white Europeans. In fact, the price tag lightens as the skin color of the child darkens.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1027/p11s01-lifp.html

>>>Now, if you can show that, say, the demand for white babies exceeds the relative number of white couples seeking to adopt, you will have proved your point."

The fact that there is a waiting list for white babies, and fair-skinned ethnic babies is the proof.

Barty writes:

>>>To believe that each life is precious and has has intrinsic value and worth is a religious belief born from a spiritual perspective, not a rational one. For those who want to eradicate religion from the public square, please consider all the ramifications of that action."

What did ol' Tommy J write in that Declaration of Independence? "We hold these truths to be self-evident?"
To place a price tag on human worth is an invitation to tyrrany and oppression.

--Cobra

No, if it was black people beating up on a white guy, they'd be too busy race-baiting and coming up with excuses about how "society" was to blame. The outcome would be the same, but the invective would be totally different.

Reginald Denny, anyone?

John -

using Jennifer Wilbanks as an example of anything other than sensationalist media idiocy trivializes any real problems arising from racism or anything else. If you think runaway bride stories are an issue then we don't really have a lot of problems.

So Cobra: If a black couple wanted to adopt, and they put a black baby as their first choice for ethnicity, is that also evidence of racism?

I don't think it is, personally; but I'm pretty sure it must be for your point to remain consistent.

Anony-mous writes:

>>>So Cobra: If a black couple wanted to adopt, and they put a black baby as their first choice for ethnicity, is that also evidence of racism?"

Not neccessarily. What is their SECOND choice? To what length and expense would they go to have their first choice? Does their desire to be a parent fall short of their desire to be a parent ONLY to a certain race of child?

Adriane writes:

>>>Reginald Denny, anyone?

I feel terrible about Reginald Denny, but at least he's still alive to read this blog, as opposed to Amadou Diallo, or Johnny Gammage.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9611/13/verdict/

Jack Tanner:

The very fact that we know who "Jennifer Willbanks" IS should tell you we have a priority displacement problem in America.

--Cobra

Cobra:

You said a mouthful, concerning a "priority displacement problem"... But does anyone doubt it?

Concerning adoption of a child who, on very first glance, looks something like you versus one who has a very obvious difference: can consideration of stigma to the child be a factor? Heck, when we were choosing names for our kids, we gave careful thought to potential nicknames, combinations of initials, etc. (My sister favored "Sebastian" with a nickname of "Basty"; we took a moment to roll our eyes at her and went back to the books. No offense to any "Sebastians" out there; different times, different names.) If you're able to choose, to a minor degree, what your child will look like, is it automatically racist to choose one who will not have to explain to his school friends why he looks different from his parents?

I'll speak softly for this statement, since it touches on a painful subject. Many adoptive parents choose adoption when they've exhausted their options for giving birth to a child. Many of those around them may be aware of what they've been going through. But strangers will not be. Are the parents automatically racist for not wanting figuratively to declare "We adopted our child" to anyone who cares to look?

I was sitting at a table with five other moms recently, three of them with children adopted from abroad. (Anecdote - worth nothing, except as illustration, I know.) Only one of the three had even tried domestic adoption first, and she had tried twice - once a "matching-skinned" baby, once a "non-matching-skinned" one. (Please forgive the grotesquerie of the terms.) The first was actually in her home for four months, then the birth mother decided she wanted her baby back. The second was a mind-change-in-hospital example. The moms who had bypassed domestic agencies for eastern European and Asian ones said they'd done so because of stories like these AND because they knew they could do very material good for some children by removing them from no-good situations abroad. Were they racist, or just unwilling to suffer the terrible disappointment of a failed adoption? If I understand correctly, once you are OK'ed to adopt a child from overseas, there are still significant hurdles to be passed once you go "get" your child, but the birth mother's retracting her decision is generally not one of them. Whereas in the US, state-by-state, natal mothers may have many weeks or months to change their minds. (In TX they don't, the other moms at the table were telling me; they have something like 48 hours. While this may seem unnecessarily fast, I tend to think it's kinder all around.)

Cobra, the problem with your assertion is that this is the same press corps that spent months agonizing over whether the stains on the dress were presidential, while such 'trivial' matters as the FTAA fell by the wayside.

Willbanks' disappearance came almost on the heels of the Scott Peterson verdict, it was suitably sensational because of the gigantic wedding that was planned the next day, and then the story took a couple more outrageous turns when she finally showed up again. So the media latched onto it like a male angler fish.

While the treatment of Willbank's case may have racial overtones at some level, Jack Tanner called it correctly: to posit this as evidence of racism, trivializes racism. Don't do that, please.

Oh, and by the way, assuming a rational commodity in an open market, price can be driven down by two factors, of which "demand" is only one of them. The other is "supply."

Babies are not necessarily rational nor are they a commodity, but in trying to address adoption with such a narrow, ideologized perspective, you are trying to reduce a sociology Master's thesis into a talkback post. Pointless, and again, a trivialization of racism.

Jamie writes:

>>>If you're able to choose, to a minor degree, what your child will look like, is it automatically racist to choose one who will not have to explain to his school friends why he looks different from his parents?"

First, I completely concede that this a sensitive topic. There are couples who anguish over these decisions, and that isn't to be taken lightly. But truth be told, "looking like one's parents" would involve a heckuva lot more than skin color. In fact, adopting from foreign lands where the parents are unknown would give the prospective parents a poker draw as to what the kid's going to grow up looking like. Unless this child is a result of the "designer baby"-egg donor movement, the only constant in the equation is that the kid "looks white." (with a wink and nod to whatever genetic shennanigans went on in generations past.)
>>>The moms who had bypassed domestic agencies for eastern European and Asian ones said they'd done so because of stories like these AND because they knew they could do very material good for some children by removing them from no-good situations abroad."
And this is precisely consistant to my earlier post. Apparently Asian babies, though still looking "different" from white adoptive parents don't carry the same stigma to American society as darker skinned children. If somebody could explain that one to me, I will promptly mail out cookies.
Jamie, I wouldn't declare racism at every perceived discriminatory choice, but there is something interesting behind the statistics. I often wonder, with our modern day accounts of segregated proms, and attacks on interracial couples, if there is still something lurking in the American subconscious that whispers..."the races should remain seperate."

Anony-mous writes:

>>>While the treatment of Willbank's case may have racial overtones at some level, Jack Tanner called it correctly: to posit this as evidence of racism, trivializes racism. Don't do that, please."

I appreciate your concern. Honestly, but there is an inequity of treatment with a corresponding dearth of minority involvement at the gatekeeping levels of American corporate media. This has been proven out in study after study, by FAR more learned individuals than myself--

>>McManus (1994) and Gandy (1998) have also discussed the market as a structural variable constraining the encoding of the news. Thus, news is deemed a business in which the attraction of audiences and advertisers play a critical role in news packaging (Hunt, 1997). In this respect, the audience's expectations (given the context of racism), that an event about Blacks will be interpreted within familiar cultural frameworks that are meaningful to them, is also a factor that constrains media representations of Blacks (Hartman & Husband, 1973). If this does not take place the event is not news worthy, or not understandable to the audience. Events that meet audience expectations about Blacks, especially negative stereotypical depictions, have a greater chance of being reported in the news. These events will be interpreted within existing negative frameworks, even if the frameworks do not fit the event (Hartman & Husband, 1973). Journalistic emphasis on negative news, routines of news collection and production that favor reproduction of the views of the dominant White group in society, market demands that plays largely to the needs of a predominantly White audience, therefore, and a larger cultural context characterized by deep roots of racism and ethnocentrism, are all facts that constrain the nature of the encoding of African-American life in the mainstream White-media."
list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109b& L=aejmc&F=&S=&P=15567

--Cobra

Cobra:

From your post:

In this respect, the audience's expectations (given the context of racism), that an event about Blacks will be interpreted within familiar cultural frameworks that are meaningful to them, is also a factor that constrains media representations of Blacks (Hartman & Husband, 1973).

I call on you to concede that things have changed a bit since 1973. That's first. Second, "given the context of racism" appears to me to be equivalent to "given the context of a literal Bible" or "given the context of global warming" - calling one of your postulates a fact whether or not it meets the criteria of fact. (Please note that I don't intend specifically to impugn the factualness of these concepts - only that there's a world of difference between "given" and "proven.")

I can't get your link to work. I understand your contention to be that African-Americans can't achieve an accurate portrayal in mainstream news because predominantly "white" audiences are the market drivers - is that correct? Can you steer me to non-mainstream sources that would provide an accurate portrayal of black Americans so that I can see for myself how inaccurate the mainstream portrayal is at present? I confess to watching almost zero television news of any type and I don't subscribe to a newspaper, which limits my knowledge of the ethnicity of any player in any story.

Cobra,

The problem I have with your general approach is that it falls prey to the "want to believe" form of fallacy -- if you believe things are structured in a certain way, you will find evidence of that structure, whether or not it actually exists in empirical testing.

Okay, so a baby of African-American decent is lest costly to adopt than a baby of caucasion origins. So what? Maybe more babies of black ancestrage are put up for adoption than babies from caucasion lineage. Maybe white babies babies are more likely to be reclaimed by their birth mothers than black babies, and the costs from those 'false adoptions' are being effectively distributed among other white babies in the adoption pool due to the higher risk. Maybe people -- apart from anything that would actually qualify as 'racism' -- look to adopt a baby of similar ethnicity to themselves, for the same reason people usually marry within their own race and social class.

Or, more likely, it is a complex mixture of many factors, of which there is some latent racism, but only a little, and not the OVERRIDING EVIDENCE of RACISM that you are searching for.

Yes, I agree that racism and its legacy have not been properly rooted out of this society. But by trying to find racism under every rock and branch, and concomitantly "seeing" it in places where an objective observer would find no clear evidence, you are effectively trivializing it. Soon, nobody who has any experience in dealing with you will care what you think, having learned by experience that such interaction is a waste of time. Or, to put it another way: ever read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?

Anony-mouse writes:

>>>Maybe people -- apart from anything that would actually qualify as 'racism' -- look to adopt a baby of similar ethnicity to themselves, for the same reason people usually marry within their own race and social class."

Again...let's experiment for a second with what you just said. Let's change some subjects:

"Maybe people -- apart from anything that would actually qualify as 'racism' -- look to hire a person of similar ethnicity to themselves, for the same reason people usually marry within their own race and social class."

"Maybe people -- apart from anything that would actually qualify as 'racism' -- look to send their children to schools with similar ethnicities as themselves, for the same reason people usually marry within their own race and social class."

"Maybe people -- apart from anything that would actually qualify as 'racism' -- look to live amongst, or lease apartments to people of similar ethnicity to themselves, for the same reason people usually marry within their own race and social class."

If those statements don't raise any questions with you, it's easy to see why we're not on the same page in this discussion.

>>>Soon, nobody who has any experience in dealing with you will care what you think, having learned by experience that such interaction is a waste of time. Or, to put it another way: ever read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?"

Well, if I remember my American history, it took nearly two hundred years for people who look like I do to get civil rights on paper, and that's inspite of the most blatant, undeniable, institutionalized forms of racism that can be imagined. If African Americans, and other minority groups were to wait until the white majority gathers in committee to unanimously agree that something qualifies as "racist", I'd loathe to imagine where I'd be right now.

Jamie:

It's a tough link, but try this one:
http://list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0109b&L=aejmc&F=&S=&P=15567

I concede that it is 2005, and not 1973. Given that, the ownership of mainstream media hasn't changed that much demographically, and even more ominously, it's under the control of fewer hands.
Do I think America has made progress on some racial issues since 1973? IMHO, Yes.
Do I think America has a long way to go? IMHO,Yes.
This opinion doesn't change my interaction with people of all stripes on a daily basis, nor do I judge people without them giving a reason for me to.

>>>Can you steer me to non-mainstream sources that would provide an accurate portrayal of black Americans so that I can see for myself how inaccurate the mainstream portrayal is at present?"

Two sites I like to visit are:
http://www.blackpressusa.com/
And
http://www.blackcommentator.com/

Now, the second site has a definitive political agenda, but artist "#29's" cartoons are worth the visit.

--Cobra

Cobra:

Thanks for the links; I'll check them out.

The problem I see with your rephrasings of anony's hypothetical are that there's a HUGE difference between one's child and one's employee, neighbor, or fellow students. You might argue (and at this hour of the morning, probably successfully, with me) that it's purely a matter of degree - but I'd contend, even before my coffee here, that degree matters. To whom, for instance, is a person attracted? If a man is attracted to black-haired, brown-skinned women approximately his own height, a short blond Scandinavian isn't going to do it for him (well, OK, we're talking about a man here, so she probably won't strike out completely - I'm JOKING of course) - but you can't take that as evidence of "racism." Racism and preference share some characteristics but are not the same.

While ownership of the news media may not have changed that much demographically (and I won't contest that point), societal attitudes are worlds different from 1973. A farm analogy might be in order: I'll go out on a limb and suggest that farm ownership demographics haven't changed dramatically since the early 1900s, at least where Big Farms are concerned. And, there are fewer Big Farmers as well. But methods have changed dramatically, and for the better in terms of food production. An imperfect analogy, believe me, I know - the portrayal of human beings in the news not being a commodity - but my point is that it's possible for an institution to change it a whole lot without its owners changing nearly as much.

I'm troubled by the thought that perhaps the United States will never be able to meet your standard of ethnic justice - or perhaps "fairness" is a better word. That said, I think I recognize prophetic speech when I hear it, and no "successful" prophet was ever out to placate his audience but rather to irritate them into right action when they didn't see themselves as needing his burr-under-the-saddle help, so in that light, preach on, Isaiah.

Jamie writes:

>>>I'm troubled by the thought that perhaps the United States will never be able to meet your standard of ethnic justice - or perhaps "fairness" is a better word. That said, I think I recognize prophetic speech when I hear it, and no "successful" prophet was ever out to placate his audience but rather to irritate them into right action when they didn't see themselves as needing his burr-under-the-saddle help, so in that light, preach on, Isaiah."

What I enjoy about your writing style is your abillity walk in the shoes of someone you disagree with. It is no easy feat to project yourself into an opposing viewpoint, yet you do so with detail to the point where the person can certainly cede points and compromise.
IMHO, America has a way to go to solve its racial and gender issues. American INDIVIDUALS however, are a different story, and hope springs forth with every positive interaction, friendship and endeavor.

--Cobra

Comments are Closed.