[Timoteo]

(10-31-2011 10:37 PM)Hooligan Harry Wrote:  

(10-31-2011 05:32 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

(10-31-2011 04:55 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

The flip-side of that is atrocities by whites against others is either brushed over, or not even mentioned at all in history books. Any attempt to address that is met with charges of negativity, or playing victim. You either believe in the truth or you don't. If any form of racism is called out by people of color against whites, the cries of "race card" immediately go up, instead of actually looking at the incident and acknowledging it. It goes both ways...

It's funny that you have people thinking that the Western media(which is entirely owned by whites) is biased against white people. How can anyone read this and think the media is anti-white? The phenomena is so pervasive that someone even had to make a wikipedia entry for it.

As for why white farmers in Zimbabwe aren't getting much coverage, I'd say it's because anything going on in Africa doesn't get much coverage in general. When hutus and tutsis were killing each other that didn't get much coverage either, nor did the 5 million dead from the civil war in Congo or the 1.5 million dead from the Algerian civil war. The white farmers live in the middle of Africa, and the media generally doesn't give a shit about anything going on in Africa since that doesn't make for great ratings.

White farmers in South Africa now, not Zimbabwe. Those farmers fled and the country is starving now with 80% unemployment. But it should get a lot of coverage, its a commonwealth country no different to New Zealand or Australia. This might not be the sort of news you would see in the USA, but it would be the sort of news we expect to see all over the commonwealth. Its always been like that. A white supremacist was killed, it was headlines for a few days. What they dont tell you is that almost 10% of the white farmer population has been murdered in home invasions, yet we got stories of a white kid killing a few people in township after he witnessed the gang rape of his mother and the execution of his father in his home. That made news here in Australia, but the original event did not.

Ans its brutal stuff. Gang rape the women and young girls before they execute the men. Torture children, beat the elderly. Not isolated cases either, its potential genocide. Hit up the South African news sites and take a look.

Speakeasy, unfortunately white guilt and very liberal, left leaning media dictates what sees print. Race crimes against whites are very under reported and there is a reluctance to print the race of perpetrators. However the very few race crimes whites commit against minorities are almost always reported as such and will see headlines. Its almost certain.

The fact that whites own the media means little. Politically correct is far more important than accuracy. Just like the MSM media tows the line with feminism and homosexuality, it does the same thing with race.

Just the way it is, its not going to change

You must not live in NY...race is the first thing they lay out when a crime is committed, and immediately discuss if race was a factor in the altercation/crime. Maybe you hear fewer reports of race crimes against whites because there are fewer of them. You could also say that the atrocities of colonizers against the colonized are minimized also by those that record history - namely whites. The political correctness things gets taken a little too far in the other direction too. I find the MSM tapdances around the race issue period, but not necessarily favoring whites OR non-whites.

However, lets look at the missing girl stories. If she's pretty and white, it gets major nationwide coverage for YEARS. Pretty black girls go missing also, but you'd be lucky if it gets local coverage for a day or too. I see THAT as a truth also. I agree that the media is more entertainment than exploration of truth, but it also plays more to it's primary audience - whites.