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.
For many decades National Geographic, with its first rate photographers and journalists, educated Americans, and awed them, revealing just how big was the world and how diverse the humanity it contained. Now its new editor wants to apologize for that:
The whole current issue is devoted to various race related PC-isms and grievances, including this feature which claims "There's no scientific basis for race - it's a made up label" and then, amusingly, goes on to provide a scientific explanation of how the current races developed through geographic isolation, substituting the word "populations" for "races".
As an adult, do you now understand that the women were photographed with bare breasts simply because they did not wear tops in their daily lives? Would you prefer that they had been given shirts to put on just for the pictures? Would not taking pictures of them at all have been better?
I was a little kid.
I didn't see the photos as porn - only horny pre-teens like my brother did lol.
But what I noted was true - they never showed photographs of bare chested white women. They also very rarely showed any white people in a "primitive" light and contrary to what you may believe, there actually are white people who live "primitive" sorts of lives.
For my childlike mind, it was very interesting looking through NG because of the way they showed Asians, Africans, and South Americans and indigenous populations of other nations/continents. I noticed when I was 10 and under that it was very odd that they primarily showed these populations in a lowly level.
Note, I often got in trouble (especially at church) for "thinking too much." I primarily remember my thoughts as a child, which is why I am very understand/forgiving of children (I remember how silly I used to be based on the things I thought). I also felt that many other magazines like Ebony and others were strange in that they had a bunch of advertisments for skin bleaching creams and what I called "butt girdles" (which are now popular again lol) in the old magazines in Granny's basement too. And how black people worshipped a "white Jesus." I noticed and thought about a lot of things when I was kid, NG included. I read a lot and so was just very thoughtful and inquisitive. Also being told I "talked like a white girl" from a white teacher and that I had a "white girl name" by that same teacher when I was 8 or 9 years old made me think a lot more about what being black meant.
So you believing I had a "preference for shirts" (lol) is silly to me, considering I shared that this was just something I noticed as a young child - the way that non-white people were portrayed in NG was inferior to how they showed whites. I don't have and didn't have a preference either way, just noticed that it was something that they did that was very strange. Also, there are many European women to this day who walk around bare breasted on the beaches of Europe (amongst other places) who could have been featured in the magazine then and today.
To be fair, there was and is a dearth of indigenous white tribes in isolated areas running around half-clothed.
NG would have to visit a European nudist colony.
FWIW I never confused the primitive tribes with my fellow citizens in DC.
LOL, I agree.
As noted above, I thought it was strange they didn't show naked white women. I also did know about nude beaches in Europe when I was a kid and wondered why they didn't know the naked women in Europe on beaches when/if they featured Europe.
As noted above, I thought it was strange they didn't show naked white women. I also did know about nude beaches in Europe when I was a kid and wondered why they didn't know the naked women in Europe on beaches when/if they featured Europe.
Because the topless African women actually went about their day in that manner. It was normal.
The topless European women were engaging in an occasional activity that was characterized by limits and privacy considerations (it is a major faux pas to take pictures or stare too long at an FKK are in Germany for instance).
The two situations could hardly be more different.
Because the topless African women actually went about their day in that manner. It was normal.
The topless European women were engaging in an occasional activity that was characterized by limits and privacy considerations (it is a major faux pas to take pictures or stare too long at an FKK are in Germany for instance).
The two situations could hardly be more different.
I agree but they did do stories about Europe at times and part of the culture is some coastal European areas, to this day, are walking around topless leisurely. Not all of the indigenous cultures that were shown topless were always topless or totally nude. Oftentimes it was portrayed with an article about specific celebrations or activities.
I don't think they did it in Europe because of the image it would portray of being undignified honestly. I personally have no issues as an adult with nudity at all and think too many people make too big of a deal about it. I just do remember as a child thinking about how they never showed naked white people. Note, I do remember seeing dirty white people lol and poor ones as well, but never naked.
ETA: I had poor white neighbors growing up often their kids would be outside without adequate clothing so knowing this (once a neighbor/woman of one of my aunts who was white did come out topless - it was horrible to my child mind lol) made me wonder why it wasn't in the magazine.
I agree but they did do stories about Europe at times and part of the culture is some coastal European areas, to this day, are walking around topless leisurely. Not all of the indigenous cultures that were shown topless were always topless or totally nude. Oftentimes it was portrayed with an article about specific celebrations or activities.
I don't think they did it in Europe because of the image it would portray of being undignified honestly. I personally have no issues as an adult with nudity at all and think too many people make too big of a deal about it. I just do remember as a child thinking about how they never showed naked white people. Note, I do remember seeing dirty white people lol and poor ones as well, but never naked.
ETA: I had poor white neighbors growing up often their kids would be outside without adequate clothing so knowing this (once a neighbor/woman of one of my aunts who was white did come out topless - it was horrible to my child mind lol) made me wonder why it wasn't in the magazine.
Well again the difference is very obvious. An occasional beach activity is not the same thing as how a person lives. National Geographic was simply showing what was real. However, I believe they did show in stories about Germany and Yugoslavia, but I am not certain.
It's not like those old Tarzan movies where the casting crew would go to McArthur Park, give all the homeless black men a dollar, and then cast them as African tribesmen in the film.
Well again the difference is very obvious. An occasional beach activity is not the same thing as how a person lives. National Geographic was simply showing what was real. However, I believe they did show in stories about Germany and Yugoslavia, but I am not certain.
It's not like those old Tarzan movies where the casting crew would go to McArthur Park, give all the homeless black men a dollar, and then cast them as African tribesmen in the film.
This is ridiculous.
They actually did a lot of stories about Europe and Europeans and still do.
However the images they portrayed of other indigenous cultures lead many people to believe that a lot of non-white people run around without clothes or live in huts. I know many Africans in particular and none of them grew up in huts or walked around topless so their real lives weren't lived the way they were often portrayed.
They actually did a lot of stories about Europe and Europeans and still do.
However the images they portrayed of other indigenous cultures lead many people to believe that a lot of non-white people run around without clothes or live in huts. I know many Africans in particular and none of them grew up in huts or walked around topless so their real lives weren't lived the way they were often portrayed.
Well of course! You know the same Africans I do and none of them are like that. Big surprise. You and I know urbane people.
That does not change the fact that some rural people lived like that. What is the big deal? I would think you would be happy that your cursed Colonialism did not corrupt every single nook and cranny of Africa.
Africa is BIG. Before the communications revolution, it would not be surprising that there still was a fair amount of this going on. Is it really so bad?
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.
