This is something I have often asked myself: why do certain stories receive so much media attention, while others, similar in respect if not much worse, receive far less attention? Because they don't fit the bill, they don't support whatever agenda the powers that be want to establish. And stories that are blown out of proportion, oversensationalized, and capitalize on fear, deserve far closer scrutiny. In the case of Dahmer, it so happened that Milwaukee had (and still has) a very disproportionate share of homicides in Wisconsin. And dare I say it, the majority of victims are black and so are the perpetrators. The story brought national attention to a very real issue, albeit, in the worst way possible. In what was a presidential election year at the time (1992), the winning party had a manifesto embedded in tackling crime and inequalities amongst minority groups. Politicians used the story to leverage their campaigns, and it also distracted the public from the very real problem of church abuse (several key players in the case were closely tied to and even defended accused priests). So, who benefited from the whole spectacle? Quite a few people did. Anthony Sowell was deserving of the same kind of frantic attention. But that would be giving the 'wrong' message.
I think the answer lies more in the victims than the criminal.
Female victims of violent crime are more often ignored and discredited posthumously, and it only gets worse as you layer in race, ethnicity, lifestyle, zip code and social and economic status, etc.
And once the victims has been devalued, the killer gets devalued, too.
Thanks for digging into this topic and opening the floor.
This comes part and parcel with traditional racist imagery directed towards Blacks in the U.S. The Black killers were not taken seriously because there has always been many inbound (and often incorrect) assumptions made about Black people by non-Blacks. They are often seen as short-tempered, trigger-happy, knife-wielding thugs who are better off killing their own than whites (which is a bridge too far, apparently). Whereas white killers are incorrectly not seen as possessing that assumed level of violence- hence their defenders insisting that they were really "good" people.
I've always been a true crime aficionado and I was surprised that I'd never heard of any of them. When you made the simple statement that most of their victims were black, it was like a light went on. It's so obvious once you point it out. I'm constantly amazed at the way racism so insidiously sneaks into everything, and that I still fail to clue into it.
I’m not sure I can add anything that David and RJ haven’t.
I recognized Samuel Little’s name but I have to wonder if it’s because as a true crime writer I’m always a little more attuned, as you know.
This is something I have often asked myself: why do certain stories receive so much media attention, while others, similar in respect if not much worse, receive far less attention? Because they don't fit the bill, they don't support whatever agenda the powers that be want to establish. And stories that are blown out of proportion, oversensationalized, and capitalize on fear, deserve far closer scrutiny. In the case of Dahmer, it so happened that Milwaukee had (and still has) a very disproportionate share of homicides in Wisconsin. And dare I say it, the majority of victims are black and so are the perpetrators. The story brought national attention to a very real issue, albeit, in the worst way possible. In what was a presidential election year at the time (1992), the winning party had a manifesto embedded in tackling crime and inequalities amongst minority groups. Politicians used the story to leverage their campaigns, and it also distracted the public from the very real problem of church abuse (several key players in the case were closely tied to and even defended accused priests). So, who benefited from the whole spectacle? Quite a few people did. Anthony Sowell was deserving of the same kind of frantic attention. But that would be giving the 'wrong' message.
I think the answer lies more in the victims than the criminal.
Female victims of violent crime are more often ignored and discredited posthumously, and it only gets worse as you layer in race, ethnicity, lifestyle, zip code and social and economic status, etc.
And once the victims has been devalued, the killer gets devalued, too.
Thanks for digging into this topic and opening the floor.
This comes part and parcel with traditional racist imagery directed towards Blacks in the U.S. The Black killers were not taken seriously because there has always been many inbound (and often incorrect) assumptions made about Black people by non-Blacks. They are often seen as short-tempered, trigger-happy, knife-wielding thugs who are better off killing their own than whites (which is a bridge too far, apparently). Whereas white killers are incorrectly not seen as possessing that assumed level of violence- hence their defenders insisting that they were really "good" people.
I've always been a true crime aficionado and I was surprised that I'd never heard of any of them. When you made the simple statement that most of their victims were black, it was like a light went on. It's so obvious once you point it out. I'm constantly amazed at the way racism so insidiously sneaks into everything, and that I still fail to clue into it.
I remember hearing Samuel Little but not in depth. It is sad how the white are privileged here to the point we didn't know any of that.
Unforgivable. You'd think the highest number of victims would end up being one of the highest levels of reporting!
Thanks, Sam.
Again, unforgivable. But not unbelievable.
Hayatımda duyduğum en güzel substack yazısıydı. Ellerinize sağlık. 👏🏼