Where's Waldo?

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Where's Waldo? And by that I mean, find the black people at Glen Beck's Rally.



It's a fun game and you can play it with all the photos I found on http://dc.about.com/od/protestsandrallies/ss/Glen-Beck-Rally-Pictures.htm

In case you need a clue, there is one gentleman in the upper left-center wearing a badge, presumably telling the white woman where to find the restroom.

[Edited for the benefit of Htpcl]

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Okay, again, this is not a group of exclusively white people. You're wrong on this. Do you understand?

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

'A group of exclusively white people' is a different statement from 'this group of exclusively white people.' The point being that so many people view a group of exclusively white people as normal, when that isn't representative of the country.

As to the group pictured. It is almost exclusively white. Is the point you are trying to make that the photo isn't exclusively white because there are one or two people of color in it? Or is your point that the GB rally was not exclusively white, but nearly so?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

'A group of exclusively white people' is a different statement from 'this group of exclusively white people.' The point being that so many people view a group of exclusively white people as normal, when that isn't representative of the country.

The good news is that it is completely normal in many instances. A group of "exclusively white people" would not be out of place at things like an indie rock concert, a Mormon church, a rural library, etc.

That you're making this point in this context is where the problem lies.

As to the group pictured. It is almost exclusively white. Is the point you are trying to make that the photo isn't exclusively white because there are one or two people of color in it? Or is your point that the GB rally was not exclusively white, but nearly so?

I'm saying it a) wasn't exclusively white, especially worth noting given that this pictures maybe 200 of the 300k people at the rally, and b) that even if it was exclusively white, it wouldn't mean a thing.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

a) By sheer probability a random picture taken of a crowd is extremely unlikely to only find person one of color unless that group is overwhelmingly white. Now if the photographer was intentional in taking the picture, it wouldn't be random but there was no indication of that.

b) It doesn't mean a thing to people who aren't used to being in or around people of color, because, well, they aren't used to seeing people of color.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

a) By sheer probability a random picture taken of a crowd is extremely unlikely to only find person one of color unless that group is overwhelmingly white. Now if the photographer was intentional in taking the picture, it wouldn't be random but there was no indication of that

If you consider it abnormal, sure. If you assume no malicious intent (hardly a given), sure.

b) It doesn't mean a thing to people who aren't used to being in or around people of color, because, well, they aren't used to seeing people of color.

Not that what you said addresses anything, of course.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Malicious intent isn't necessary for racism to exist.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Actually, intent is absolutely necessary. A small child who doesn't understand anything but prefers to play with white instead of black dolls cannot be racist, for example.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Your definition of what racism is is badly out of date.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, my definition of racism is exactly what normal folk consider racism. What definition are you using?