Loading...

Yeah, just reading up on them a little bit. And they had one part there that was interesting, that the National Geographic basically no longer published images of Africa. Wait a second. So yes, National Geographic has long published images of Africans and African-Americans. But early coverage was colonial and objectifying, later decades, even content and representation. I couldn't really understand what they were talking about today. They may be openly about just incorrect, it's past bias. So I was wondering what they were talking about. In the early coverage, Africans and indigenous people were photographers, curiosity posed in a way to emphasize differences rather than shared humanities. Never thought of it that way before. Mid-century, 20th century, human content, decolonization, and civil rights movements reshaped global thinking. The magazines slowly began to depict people of their political, social, and creative reality, showing nations gaining independence. And then it sounded bad. OK. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to repeat all this shit. Sometimes I wonder what the hell some of these search engines are actually talking about. Hey, let's not forget something even more important than National Geographic. I miss Playboy. Of course, I didn't go for the pictures. I went for all the interesting articles.