Were they racist or were they liars?
National Geographic acknowledged on Monday that it covered the world through a racist lens for generations, with its magazine portrayals of bare-breasted women and naive brown-skinned tribesmen as savage, unsophisticated and unintelligent.
Were the women getting unclothed for the photo shoot, or was that the way they walked around? Were the tribesman civilized and intelligent?
For example, in a 1916 article about Australia, the caption on a photo of two Aboriginal people read: “South Australian Blackfellows: These savages rank lowest in intelligence of all human beings.”
Did they? Were they feigning low intelligence, or was Nat Geo lying?
In National Geographic’s April issue, Goldberg, who identified herself as National Geographic’s first woman and first Jewish editor, wrote a letter titled “For Decades, Our Coverage Was Racist. To Rise Above Our Past, We Must Acknowledge It.”
So no more photo expeditions uncovering tribesmen living deep in the jungles in far away lands? Why? Would that be racist? It won’t be if you lie and say they have high IQs.
“I knew when we looked back there would be some storytelling that we obviously would never do today, that we don’t do and we’re not proud of,” she told AP. “But it seemed to me if we want to credibly talk about race, we better look and see how we talked about race.”
Nat Geo is interested in their new truth, a version based on their agenda. It will skew every story through their current political lens. How is this any different than what they say the old Nat Geo was?
Making sure that kind of coverage never happens again should be paramount, Husni said. “Trying to integrate the magazine media with more hiring of diverse writers and minorities in the magazine field is how we apologize for the past,” Husni said.
Goldberg said, “So we need photographers who are African-American and Native American because they are going to capture a different truth and maybe a more accurate story.”
ht/ wait for it