I’m wondering if you read the actual article from Nat Geo or just the NPR article about it you posted? Because I read the Nat Geo article yesterday and didn’t feel at all like it came off as they were “shocked” by their own racist past as much as just acknowledging their wrongs and talking about how they aim to do better. And, considering it is a preface to an issue entirely about race (of which the creators are largely people of color), I actually felt like it was well done and necessary.
I did read it, and it was indeed necessary. Long overdue in fact, IMHO!
I was more reacting to the slew of articles (and tv news clips, etc.) following NatGeo’s article, where people express shock, surprise etc at NatGeo having been clearly racist all along.
Also, we can’t make light of the fact that National Geographic waited until 2018 to finally address it and did so in their “Race” issue which they knew - just by that name in this current climate - would draw scores of clicks and thus money for them.
I would have respected them a lot more if they had addressed it in a similar fashion but not in a way that benefits them the way that “Race” issue undoubtedly will. In another issue before this one, for instance.
IMHO (and I say this from my experience as a former journalist myself) they wanted to do a “Race” issue to capitalise on the current Racially-charged climate, and they knew they’d have to preface it with their own “come to Jesus moment” so they chose their own “black friend” to point out their flaws in a way acceptable to them, and then did the usual wypipo thing and bowed their heads and sought redemption.
They could have owned up to all this countless years ago because Black and Brown and “Third World” people have been writing letters and emails and tweets, etc., about this literally as long as I’ve been alive.
But it fell on deaf ears until now, because NOW the racially-charged global climate is potentially profitable/marketable to them.
THAT’S what I have a problem with and referred to in my previous post.
Thanks for the question though. I’m glad you asked this because I’m sure alot of other people (especially people who aren’t of the same mind as me) probably thought exactly what you wondered.
“Did he read the article?”
“But they wrote about it so honestly and they even apologised and it seemed sincere...”
Ok, but WHY though? And WHY NOW?
I say all this to try and explain that I’m not critiquing the execution of the article. I’m critiquing the motivation, which (again, IMHO) is much more important here.
Also as a side point, it’s tough to take their apology very seriously when even in articles in their “Race” issue, NatGeo writers continue to demonstrate that they are still ignorant when it comes to the difference between race, and culture/nationality/geography.
For instance, in the cover story of their “Race” issue... 👇🏾
The above picture is accompanied by a caption (which is the first thing you’d read, before the article begins) which reads:
Marcia (left) and Millie Biggs, both 11, say people are shocked to learn that they’re fraternal twins. Marcia looks more like their mother, who’s English born, and Millie looks more like their father, who’s of Jamaican descent.
They clearly mean to point out that one twin looks like her WHITE mother and the other looks like their BLACK father, but instead they use “Jamaican” and “English” as descriptors.
This is both ridiculous and offensive.
There are White, Black, Latinx, East Asian and South Asian people (among other ethnicities) in both both Jamaica and England. What does that have to do with how the girls look physically, though?
If they had taken the time to consult an ethnologist, or just someone who travelled alot, or some just Jamaicans (hell, almost any West Indian or POC for that matter) they would have known that this was a faux pas. But they didn’t.
These types of problems pop up repeatedly throughout the National Geographic “Race” issue.
Soooo... how can we really take their “heartfelt apology” seriously? I know I certainly can’t at this point.
Thanks again for the great question, @myselfoverme. Hopefully you get where I’m coming from now?!
Feel free to hit me back with any other comments, thoughts, etc.
Civil discussion is important on serious issues like this.
