Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm a minority and I read that article they released...I disagree with them pointing out racism from eras when it was normal.
National Geographic was never racist. The things they are apologizing for - profiles of exotic people in far away lands being exotic - were actually great work. The worst thing they could find in their archives was a 100-year-old article that said Australian Aborigines were the least intelligent humans. But that has been confirmed accurate by IQ testing, and is an important factor in why Australia has had so much trouble assimilating its natives. If we want to actually understand the story of the Aborigines, that's information we need.
Quote:
I'm more concerned about what they report NOW. National Geographic, in spite of its past, inspired so many.
It was an inspiration to many because of its past excellence. Now it's just another mouthpiece for PC liberal ideology.
If they want to make up for all the topless native women they've shown in the past they should do a story on American college girls going topless in their natural Spring Break environment.
National Geographic is now headed by a Social Justice Warrior obsessed with identity and looking to validate herself with false apology that is really condemnation of others she doesn't like.
National Geographic is now headed by a Social Justice Warrior obsessed with identity and looking to validate herself with false apology that is really condemnation of others she doesn't like.
Meaning.
National Geographic won't exist in 10 years.
Yes, and Susan Goldberg, the Editor is yet another female, Jewish BOLSHEVIK like many other "activists" all over the U.S. heading unions, news orgs, and pressure groups. I am surprised she doesn't have a hyphenated last name.
National Geographic was never racist. The things they are apologizing for - profiles of exotic people in far away lands being exotic - were actually great work. The worst thing they could find in their archives was a 100-year-old article that said Australian Aborigines were the least intelligent humans. But that has been confirmed accurate by IQ testing, and is an important factor in why Australia has had so much trouble assimilating its natives. If we want to actually understand the story of the Aborigines, that's information we need.
It was an inspiration to many because of its past excellence. Now it's just another mouthpiece for PC liberal ideology.
Until now anyway when the new racist editor came along and started basically falsely attacking white people who came before her.
And while race has never been designated as a biological classification via Linnaeus making it a social construct in the strictest sense it clearly has merit as a factor in biological differences between humans.
NG is being dishonest presenting this outlook...especially in hindsight.
I once spent a couple of days perusing through the early years of the National Geographic.
For sure, there was a lot of stuff about noble white men saving the savages from themselves in them. White superiority went hand in hand with their exploration for a very long time. Most explorers were racists, at least in their regards to what comprised their notions of a civilized society when encountering one that was strange to them.
But I think that most of it was simply the times; racist attitudes were very common throughout the 'civilized world' then, and those attitudes still exist today. At least the Geographic recognizes its problem and is doing something constructive about it. I think its healthy for the organization.
For many years now, National Geographic has been a Far Left, Progressive rag. All Man Made Climate Change, and Progressive drivel, all the time. I haven't even considered picking one up at the Dentist's office in years.
What on Earth are you taking about? Science is "far left" and "progressive"? What?
If they want to apologize for how they portrayed black Americans that's one thing, but bush people are bush people. Of course you portray them as being primitive, because that what they are. I would expect that if they did a story about bush people today they would also portray them as being primitive, and if they didn't, they wouldn't be doing their jobs.
Have you ever seen an old Natl Geographic magazine?!! As a teenager in the 1970s, I “read” some older Natl Geographics from the 1950s- 1960s at my Jr High library. It’s not ONLY that they depicted naked Bush people as primitive. I remember one where there was a lustful-looking white safari guy with bare-breasted black women dancing around him. It was funny to me at the time, but sickening to me now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
