Quote:
Originally posted by 6_INCH_HEELS
How are the last two not alike? Irresponsible parents, child in danger, dangerous animals present. One child unfortunately died. The only difference is that the parents of the child still living were looked at as criminals, with their lives and histories dissected just to place blame for the death of a ****ing gorilla. Why was this one family treated so much more differently than the other?
|
Ok, you may laugh at this explanation (but it's actually valid).
Well first, there was pretty much no damage done to the African-American child. He was unscathed and it's easier to be critical since the gorilla suffered more damage than the child. He died, afterall.
In the second case, the opposite happened. The alligator lived and the child was snatched, gone. So there was actually something to mourn. What do we mourn in the first case? Only the Gorilla since that's the only one that died. Just like the child was the only one to die in this case.
Also animals like Gorillas (mammals) are pretty much romanticized in pop culture. Like they're stuffed animals, they're furry, etc. Even though they're deadly as ****. Alligators are always seen as malicious / vicious and are always described in cartoons as having an evil, devilish presence.
Similarly, a person is more likely to be killed by a Lion than a Snake, but when a snake killed a lion, everyone hat sympathized with the Lion. Why? Stuff like Lion King, and the fact that they're furry and close to cats, helped people have a bias towards Lions. The "snake" from Adam and Eve, Slytherin references, etc. always show snakes in a low, diabolical, malevolent light. That subconsciously programs people.
