Okay, I had noticed this before, but I think the practice has grown to epic proportions. Whenever commentators on the news refer to “urban” or “disadvantaged” children, they are always backed up with photo footage of Black children. Sometimes Hispanic children. Never white or Asian children.
If they’re talking about Blacks, just say Blacks. Nothing wrong with that. But don’t try to call me urban cuz I have never lived in the city. I am a suburban girl. And I am not disadvantaged in the way that they are implying. I am not poor. Except for my first year of college and a brief layoff, I have always held a job. I have a college degree. I have never been on government assistance. I do not have any illegitimate children.
Yet, the media constantly lumps all Blacks into one category and calls it “urban”, regardless of where or how we grew up. I’ve seen them use the word urban and show footage of Black farm owners. Has the definition of urban change in the last couple of years and no one told me?
And what about the others who live in urban settings - Asians, whites, Pacific Islanders, Native Americans? Why don’t we see them as urban or disadvantaged? Why do we not explore the issues facing the urban Jew or disadvantaged Laotians?
It’s 2006! Can we not present a view of the world that is more a representation of fact than euphemism?
Hi Abbie,
Too many media people worrying about offending that they end up offending anyway LOL I read a book that I thought you might like called “That takes ovaries” edited by Rivka Solomon. Great stories of feisty women. It was a wonderfully empowering read… might even get you sparked into writing?!
Catch today and be happy,
Meadow
Comment by Meadow — August 18, 2006 @ 10:18 pm