Earlier this year, National Geographic examined its own role in creating and perpetuating racial stereotypes and acknowledging that its coverage in the past has been racist. Its last two magazine covers have drawn criticism, leading some to wonder if anything has changed.
Kainaz Amaria, an editor at Vox, called attention to the National Geographic covers, suggesting that one conveys a "heroic white cowboy" narrative while the other perpetuates a “primitive other” stereotype.
In drawing attention to the magazine covers, Amaria sparked some constructive debate. Charlie Hamilton Jones, the photographer of the monkey hanging onto the child’s head, explained how closely he works with isolated communities and that he was shooting a phenomenon that he saw around him regularly. James also pointed out that the article connected to the cover photograph talked about many of the myths surrounding these tribes.
https://twitter.com/chamiltonjames/status/1054990264782200832
Others were keen to point out that while he might have been depicting what he saw around him, it was part of an editorial tendency to seek out such images and deliver “what Nat Geo [is] looking for and what audiences love.”
With a respectable amount of grace, James acknowledged that as journalists and editors, they will make mistakes and always welcome the thoughts of others. For National Geographic, the difficulty now sits between creating compelling images that grab their readers' imaginations while also maintaining their journalistic integrity and ensuring that they do not perpetuate inaccurate stereotypes of distant people and view them through colonialist eyes.
Where does this balance sit? How do photographers provoke by creating something compelling but without reducing something complex to mere surface? Your thoughts in the comments, please.
who is more ignorant, the "primitive" culture photographed on the cover or the person to whom the article is attempting to appeal?
but let's be honest, taken out of context, any image can be used to serve a narrative. that's what's clearly on display here.
Outrage, outrage. Can't get enough outrage.
So, a cover with a white person on it is racist, and a cover with a non-white person on it is also racist? I'm so tired of everything being racist. Let the magazine do stories on whatever they want to do stories on. If you don't like their stories, don't buy the magazine. Next, somebody is going to look at every story published by Fstoppers and determine that there's some bias present that Fstoppers needs to apologize for. We've gone way overboard with this nonsense and it distracts from the actual racism that still exists.
Fstoppers is clearly biased toward cell phones being better cameras than actual cameras! ;-)
FStoppers seems to perpetuate the myth that photographers are crotchety, pedantic, and condescending. Err, nevermind, that's no myth.
You don't seem to understand the context. A picture of a white cowboy is not inherently racist.
When you put such a picture next to all of the other pictures on Nat Geo covers, like the one above, there is a clear - very clear - trend in the photos that reinforces racial stereotypes.
By itself, neither picture is racist. In the context of, well, the world and hundreds of other Nat Geo covers, it's clearly an example of systemic racism. Not intentionally. I'm sure no one meant any ill will. But talking about these things is the only way for people to understand and change - or, for many people like yourself, just dig your heels in and complain about going "overboard with this nonsense."
"Actual racism" as you put it, is pervasive in every facet of our culture. You can't say "no, the real racism is over here" because it is EVERYWHERE. Pointing it out in one place doesn't detract from or negate it being a problem elsewhere too.
Let's remember for a moment that a photograph may be truth, but it's not the whole truth. In reality it's only a slice of time. NatGeo, a business, be it not-for-profit or otherwise, will do it's best to try to sell as many magazines as possible, so they will choose to put something eye-catching on the cover, the way they always have and the way EVERY magazine in the world also chooses to do.
I think their reviewing their coverage to see if there is any level of bias is fine. But they alone are not going to combat the prejudices of every reader and potential reader out there. Of course, the key word there being "read" and if NatGeo fans would read the articles, and not just look at the amazing photos, they would see just how much there is to learn about cowboys or isolated communities out there.
Too many people calling racist wolf. It's diminishing true calls of racism.
Perhaps the error is to think of Vox as being objective journalism.
Exactly. The headline alone is suspect. When I opened the piece, the moment I saw Vox I just stopped reading. Dear God, when will the purveyors of outrage realize that seeing racism in almost every conceivable expression is itself racism
Vox - the company that pays 23 year olds to call everything racist
Who's Vox, and who cares? P.C. police these days is making anyone afraid of publishing anything for fear of offending some tribe living under a rock.
If they are really "living under rocks", it's not demeaning. For you to decide their lifestyle is demeaning is more racist than any photo I've ever seen in NG.
I could say the same to you but think everyone's opinion has value.
Award for stupidest comment of the day goes to Sam Fargo
Observing the absurd is not outrage. Presenting different cultures and people around the world as being, well, different, is not racism. People and cultures are not all the same; thankfully. That's not a value judgement, it's objective fact. The notion that an image that encapsulates the gist of a particular cultural strata is not racism or stereotyping, it's encapsulating a differing culture in a single photograph. Sometimes messy? Yes. Can it be racist? Yes, but not automatically so.
However to the postmodern orthodoxy everything is based on identity and race, thus their racism is not racism and non racist behavior, like the presented photos, is racist.
Orwellian to say the least.
All y’all makin big words and stuff.
Oh get over it.
I'm failing to see the racism. Can someone please point me to it?
next on the list to kill of in name of PC, homer Simpson. he portraits your average white american guy, fat, beer guzzler and not to bright. how about family guy he makes fun of fat people. and and and the list never stops until we live in a world i would not like to be a part of.
I consider myself extremely lucky that I am not living in the same period in history as my parents or grand parents. As for National Geographical, the world is a different place now, and there are other far more educated way of learning about our world,warts and all, and consign NG to the history bin. Time to move on to better, well informed media outlets.
Are there "far more educated way [sic] of learning about our world?" What are some of those examples? Are you sure they can stand up to the same level of scrutiny?
Wow, what a presumptuous view. Try travelling instead of just buying a magazine.
Elan Govan, I've lived 13 years in the Far East.
Traveling oneself is not necessarily a "better" way of learning about the world as whole. For instance, despite 13 years in Asia, I've still never been to the Amazon rain forest or to Eastern Europe or to South Africa.
Educated people are always going to have to depend on the reportage of others for most of their knowledge, so, it's flat out stupid to talk about consigning NG to the history bin.
There lies your problem. Calling people stupid for having an opinion to consign a magazine to the history bin hardly intelligent or educational. NG is not the Holy Bible or the constitution of a country. I do not wish to waste any of my time with this to and fro especially at a time when people died senselessly in a synagogue. Good day
I see two people in their environment. One Semi-modern, one primitive. I actually admire some of the primitive cultures that can survive happily without all of the modern conveniences. I think the problem is the people that look at those people as unequally valued instead of just different. This whole "everything is racist" thing has to end - it's not all racism - some of it's bigotry, stereotypical, or other things - it's not always because of race. It's kinda funny how 20 years ago it was all about "multiculturalism" - but now it's all about just blending everything together and ignoring culture.
This is pure nonsense. This article assumes that tribes of Amazon have teh same standard of living as people in the US, but Nat Geo somehow skews this picture. Well guess what, stereotypes are mostly true. This is why they exist
Just wow. You seem to have very little understanding of the medium of photography if you don't see what the whole article is actually about.
Nice one, but trying to be a bully doesn’t cancel your racism. What you need is to be educated. Until then don’t try to speak on our behalf, we don’t need racists like you fighting for our cause (yes I’m an immigrant and minority)
I think there are valid points on both sides of the issue. To be candid, racism, sexuality and religion are still the hot button subjects that we can't seem to discuss without arguing, sounding dismissive or defensive.
Personally I get it...as a long time fan of NatGeo and a minority. Images of cowboys/westerners depicting heroism, power, privilege etc is common as rats. We have seen that for decades and most of us cannot imagine the subsistence level living of a street person in our culture let alone a member of an isolated tribe in some far off exotic place. Throw in a loincloth...or not, and a monkey and now you have an image that can sell magazines.
Is that racist...not necessarily IMO. I would rather look at that image and read about the culture of the people than look at yet another image of a cowboy.
400 more years will pass and I bet we'll still be kicking each other over this topic.
What a bunch of bull. These photos capture the reality of the world, both past and present. Like it or not it is reality.
I don't think it's racist, and I come from a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-lingual family. The cowboy is not a heroic symbol, in fact, after the Malheur standoff, I have a hard time seeing them positively. Maybe the article would help me overcome that. The kid is cute. If it was a white kid with a kitten on his head, would that be considered racist? Different cultures, different pets. I like to learn about other people and how they live. I don't judge them to be inherently inferior just because they don't own a lot of things, that's an American thing to do. Portraying people as they live, without judgment, is not racist.
Lol. The point isn't about a singular (or 2 photos). It's an observation of a distinct narrative found in NatGeo. The resolve and belief that "if its not overtly racist then its not racist" is an invalid argument. Racism comes in a myriad of forms and may not be as obtrusive as one would think. Fantasizing & fetishizing a class of people is just as racist as exclusion. Omission is just as racist as derision. And whether you believe it to be PC or not. NatGeo as an organization has to find the ethical balance in their portrayal of their subjects in both picture and print.
Your point about "fetishizing a group of people" also being racist, makes me wonder, what IS racism? Is "positive" racism as bad as negative racism? What about neutral racism? By thinking of a group of people, aren't you necessarily "grouping" them in some way and therefore being racist? Isn't it possible to have an opinion, any opinion, about a group of people but it not inform your opinion of individuals in that group, even those you haven't met? When the news talks about illegal immigrants, I have a mental image but when I meet people who, in all likelihood, are here illegally, that possibility never even occurs to me.
Well for one, there is a difference between stereotyping and racism. Grouping people together in your head with one image is a stereotype. I.e. all New Yorkers eat Pizza. But when it becomes derogatory, discriminatory, or exclusionary for no other purpose than superiority, that is when it evolves into racist.
I stated fetishizing as a form of racism, because most often, the fetishization of a group tends to be a fetishization sans their humanity. It is to be a spectacle, used, but not respected. For example, Europeans for years found Africans interesting, and fetishized them as points of wonder and astonishment, yet found (even though Africans were of the same species) that they were less than them.
That is an occurrence, while not as blatant lends itself to an issue like this.
I see. Thanks for the clarification.
I’m just surprised there is no other minorities being offended by not being represented on NG covers.
I do not see any signs of racism here-this is another example of an idiot trying to make something out of nothing. If you cannot come up with an article of substance try to find an occupation that you can succeed at and hide your negative attitude on life.
Ha! Ok.