I don't understand the attempt to equate being "Bosnian" to being black with respect to their relative places in society.
I don't understand it either. Did anybody do that?
Yes. People are comparing the coverage of this event to the coverage of the Michael Brown story with respect to the emphasis on the "race" of each victim.
I don't see your second post above being the same as your first post above.
Probably because you've taken one sentence out of the first post above.
Which sentence and how does it make your statement that people are attempting "to equate being "Bosnian" to being black with respect to their relative places in society" correct?
I certainly agree with your second post that "people are comparing the coverage of this event to the coverage of the Michael Brown story with respect to the emphasis on the "race" of each victim.
You can do the latter without doing the former.
By pointing out the difference in coverage between the death of a Bosnian man and that of a black man, the person making the comparison is implying that they should be covered the same. There are only two reasons for someone to believe that. Either:
a) They think that all instances like this (a violent death) should be covered the same regardless of "race" because "race" does not matter.
or
b) They think that race does matter, and the death of a Bosnian should be covered the same as the death of a black person because they are both suppressed (in some way) minority groups that have experienced similar histories of discrimination or persecution or been the subject of institutional "racism."
Both points are, in my opinion, stupid. If you're saying that I've assumed that it was b when it could've just been a, then okay, maybe it was. But they're both stupid.