I dunno, it looks pretty exotic to me…
Sometimes you could just beat your head against the wall…
Nothing gets a leftid’s rocks off like loudly, publicly confessing all kinds of guilt and singing a freakin’ opera over it. In this way liberalism parodies some of the more exotic forms of religion. Or maybe a group therapy session that’s gotten out of hand.
The latest entry in the self-flagellation derby is National Geographic, a famous magazine first published in 1888, whose editor now confesses, “For decades, our coverage was racist” (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/national-geographic-acknowledges-past-racist-coverage-53696173). She discovered this traumatic fact after an “investigation” (oh, please) by a collidge prefesser. Now she can’t say enough about her magazine’s guilt.
In fact, next month they’re going to public a Full Apology for Our Dastardly Racism issue.
Laments the editor, “People of color were not often surrounded [in our depiction of them] by technologies of automobiles, airplanes or trains or factories.” It couldn’t possibly be, could it, that very few people in the Congo or central New Guinea in, say, the early 1950s, actually had a lot of cars, planes, or trains? But sez the University of Virginia prefesser who done the *Investigation*, all them racists at NG portrayed the inhabitants of such places as “exotics, famously and frequently unclothed, happy hunter, noble savages–every type of cliche.” Boo. Hiss.
Dude, it’s “corporate headhunters” who wear the three-piece suits. Not the real headhunters.
A question springs to mind: does anyone in any of those faraway places care what National Geographic said about them in 1925?
Of course not. This is all about self-righteous liberals proclaiming how good they are now by carrying on and on about how bad they used to be. It’s all about them. Always. And again we’ve got the Diversity crowd trying to pretend there’s no such thing, blah-blah.
Growing up, it was fun to page through National Geographic and see photos of all sorts of exotic places. It gave me the idea that the world was a wide and wonderful place, full of infinite variety.
Maybe they’ll apologize for that, too. Liberal windbags.
Liberalism is a religion, even if they vehemently deny God. They scourage themselves like some obscure order of monks.
Racism is in the eye of the beholder and they’re all liberals. Everything I want to say somehow may be misinterpreted as racist, so instead I’ll just remind everyone – they serve a different god than we do. They’re in for a big surprise when they discover that they’ve been working for a fake and our God is the One True God!
Pardon me for asking, but isn’t it racist — or at least ethnocentric — to assume that members of all other cultures are really truly just like wonderful us, and that we shouldn’t present them any other way?
Well.. you’re a boomer like I am so you may or may not recall…. back in the day (certainly MY wonder years) my first introduction to naked women and boobs was black tribesmen depicted in National Geographic; Playboy was relatively new and no one was throwing them out as much… hard to get (..and you got hard when you got one.)
But… I agree…there’s no need to apologize; although a reflection back to contrast society then and now is ok. But why apologize when your publication was simply reflecting demographic norms of the day.
I’ve always loved the National Geographic (until recent years when they have gone so liberal). In fact, when a freshman in college, I plastered all the walls of my good-sized bedroom with pictures from the Nat’l Geographic – I had the whole world to look at pictorially,