Warning: NSFW. Bare breasts ahead!
National Geographic nudity (1896- ), also known as tribal nudity, is where National Geographic shows the bare breasts and penises of brown-skinned people but not those of whites. It has been well-known for this since the 1960s, though the practice goes back to 1896.
Apart from pornography, it is rare for a mass-market American magazine to show the bare breasts or penis of anyone of any race. National Geographic is the main exception. It gets away with it in the name of science, of showing Americans the world as it truly is.
But this love of truth only extends to black and brown people, particularly the “tribal” people of Africa, Australia, the Pacific and Amazonia. In the early 1900s Latina and Arab women also appeared bare-breasted – erotically so. All in all, pretty much the same sort of people who appeared in human zoos in the late 1800s and early 1900s.
This love of truth does not extend to white people. While it does show naked white people, like in Canada, Yugoslavia and the Baltic, it always manages to show them from behind or in Convenient, Unerotic Poses where you see neither breast nor penis (except on small children).
Spot the difference:
Here is a picture of naked white people from their May 1989 article on the Baltic:
Compare that to this picture from their October 1986 article on Yap Island in Micronesia:
Penises: They were careful to avoid showing penises of black men up until at least 1986. That is no longer true.
Bare breasts: Before 1970 these were mostly “accidental”, just showing life like it is. That seems to be true in the 2010s as well, as far as I can tell. But in the 1970s and 1980s the pictures became more frequent, more artistic and they increasingly used teenaged girls. That Yap Islander girl in the grass skirt above is a good example. She is posing. It is not “accidental” nudity.
The Gordon Gahan photograph of the Tahitian woman (September 1971, pictured at top) is another good example. It looks like something straight out of a Gauguin painting. Yet when Gauguin arrived in Tahiti from France in the 1890s, he got there long after the Christian missionaries: the women were already covered up. But he painted them topless anyway. Likewise Gahan 80 years later – though apparently Tahitian women are high enough on the National Geographic Scale of Human Worth and Dignity to rate Partially Strategic Hair.
The pictures of bare-breasted black and brown women – Josephine Baker among them (July 1989) – send a double message:
- On the one hand they say that these women lack modesty, that they are closer to animals, that they are loose and want it. They strengthen the Jezebel and Pure White Woman stereotypes that grew out of American slavery.
- On the other hand, they say that black and brown women are so undesirable that naked pictures of them count not as pornography but science, like they are not fully human, like they are not worthy of the dignity accorded to white women.
– Abagond, 2013.
Source: “Reading National Geographic” (1993) by Catherine A. Lutz and Jane L. Collins; Rob’s Naturist Site (NSFW).
See also:
Abagond 
First post. Yay! Lol.
Interesting post. This post touches on the fetishisation (is that a word? Lol) of what I heard scholars call “the Other”, that is to say, the erotic portrayal (either in painting, literature, photography etc.) of non-whites.
I wonder how young the Tahitian girl in the photo is? She looks very young. A White photographer couldn’t get away with that with a very young White girl, without being charged with paedophilia of course.
Some interesting links relating to this post:
‘Under Imperial Eyes, Black Bodies, Buttocks, and breasts’
Click to access Engmann-Publication.pdf
– Interesting pics
(Important to note the references to the European belief that Africans were sexually promiscuous, lewd, lascivious, primitive, and how their bodies were an indicator of racial inferiority)
Another pic:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Did u collate any statistics? How much could you investigate? For example, how about “tribal” people in central Asia, or the Arctic? How far away from “civilization” do they have to be? For example, amazonial aborigines on the streets of manaus, or aboriginal yami people in taitung or kaohsiung? Are bushmen fair game in south africa, but not bantu or coloureds? can u determine the rule? How much is related to race?
I suppose it depends on what the editor determines would offend their target audience. If they are deemed not quite human than nudity is not pornography ( in the editor’s eyes).
LikeLike
Just once I’d love for a “photographer” to go into the caves in Caucasus Mountains and “photograph” Yurugu still walking around on all fours, living in his own fecal matter, eating raw meat.
This “photography” of Natives in our natural habitat is just the European man’s way of proving that brown people are still “savages” that are incapable of being “civilized.”
Must keep the propaganda alive, eh?
LikeLike
@ Ellis
Right, imagine middle-class White American teenaged girls in these pictures. That will show you how sleazoid and questionable these pictures are. That people do not see that is a measure of how much they have dehumanized black and brown women in their minds. There is no reason why they should not be given the same level of respect and dignity.
LikeLike
Abagond:
As mentioned several times, the difference is the context in which a culture treats nudity.
You’ve countered your own argument with that image of the Baltic bathers. Ellis apparently missed this also.
LikeLike
Aba
“There is no reason why they should not be given the same level of respect and dignity.”
Because brown people are not considered fully hueman. We are still cattle deserving of exploitation and sexualization. This is the root of why white racism will never end.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
As far as I know it never goes north of Amazonia except for two cases – Josephine Baker (July 1989) and an El Salvadoran Latina in November 1944. If memory serves, there is a third case: Japanese Ama divers in July 1971 but I cannot confirm that. If true, that would be pretty bad since they gave up diving nude in the 1930s.
Other than those it is always Africa, Australia, Melanesia, Micronesia and Amazonia as far as I know. For Polynesia, the photo at top is as far as they seem to go.
National Geographic LOVES showing the “modern” and the “primitive” together. There is a photo from the 1960s showing a bare-breasted high school girl (looks Micronesian) looking through a microscope. But in general nudity is shown in “tribal” settings.
LikeLike
I wonder what can shake Nat Geo off its foundation – perhaps if one of those naked tribal girls becomes an international fashion model. It would make Nat Geo look out of whack (or, even fake, like the Tasadays). They should have learned form the Tasaday experience.
LikeLike
@ jefe
I will post the list of cases i know about here in the comments, hopefully later today. I was going to put it in the post but ran out of room.
LikeLike
It is pitiful that they show a teenage girl naked but wouldn’t dare do that to white teen girls. Example; the movie blue lagoon starring Brooke shields had people saying it was child porn and shouldn’t be shown,but the movie doesn’t really show anything and she had a body double for those controversial scenes. But apparently its not child porn when a young girl somewhere else is photographed nude. Apparently People are fine just as long as it doesn’t happen here or to them, hence the reason when anything happens here they always say” this wasn’t supposed to happen here”, as if its ok it happens somewhere else.
They love showing black women/men in a primitive state it makes them feel superior and watch us as if we are some wild animals in natural habitat. *whisper in a british accent” and here is the African female gathering water at the waterhole for her young.Oh look there is the African male gathering fish for the tribe, shhh, be quiet lets not disturb him as they are know to attack *backs away slowly*
They also love showing black women/men in a hyper sexualized state as well, to make us seem like animals who f anything.
Which is the reason they have mandingo parties and aren’t worried about their wife running away with the black man because they think black men are like animals that will f anything and not have an emotional attatchment. Therefore they feel secure enough to let him be with his wife and not fear losing her.
LikeLike
@ truthbetold
Well, yes, no GOOD reason.
LikeLike
@ Randy
How does the Baltic picture counter my argument?
LikeLike
As I mentioned, I remember seeing an article on the Yami People of Taiwan many years ago, and they made them look very tribal looking. I cannot remember if there was any nudity. Anyhow, they are more austronesian looking, so to western readers might look more like pacific islanders rather than Taiwanese (and thus tribal). But put western clothes on them and put them in an urban setting, and they would probably pass as Taiwanese to the same readers.
I suppose if you take a photo in an urban setting, it suddenly appears pornographic.
LikeLike
Abagond:
Essentially, you’re claiming that National Geographic treats these pictures differently based upon race, with non-white subjects handled in a more prurient or less dignified manner.
Aside from the problem of statistically insufficient data points with regards to poses, etc, the Baltic picture appears to counter your argument.
Here’s how:
Whereas only a relatively small percentage of Europeans engage in nudist behaviors, and most do so in very narrow circumstances, toplessness is the traditional manner of the Yap people.
In other words, the opposite claim as yours could be made. One could claim that National Geographic really had to go out of their way to photograph nude Europeans while most (maybe nearly all?) of the Yap dress without tops.
I wouldn’t imagine that you’re likely to see a Yap student appearing much differently than the one in the picture, whereas most Europeans you’d find on a beach would be clothed.
LikeLike
@ Randy
The issue is not the frequency of nudity. It is how it is shown. There is a double standard. Where is the picture of that white woman posed like the Yap Islander girl? How come they do not show her breasts, even “accidentally”?
And even if you want to talk about frequency, the sort of nudity shown in the first picture, the Tahitian girl, has not been common in Tahiti for over a hundred years. It pushes stereotype not science.
LikeLike
Those types of photos feed into the sterotypes of black and brown women as sexualised animalistic others. Existing purely as playthings for white men, like sexual Pokemon. “Hey, I’ve never had a black chick before! Asian women will do whatever you want in bed” etc. Scientifically framing us this way reinforces the idea THAT THIS IS THE NATURAL STATE OF THINGS and attempts to justify our degradation at their hands. We are not even accorded the humanity of white women. Pornography plain and simple, there’s a reason these were kept to be read in the toilet…
LikeLike
Personally I never looked at this as a stereotype, growing up during puberty.. I looked at it as it was… bare breasted women who often times were sexually attractive. My mom threw out some of my NatGeo mags after finding them under the bed. Really shame on them for pawning those stories off as family friendly.
LikeLike
How is that “objectification” of PoC’s bodies (mainly women)? These groups are living within a context in which breasts and buttocks are not sexual.
People crying foul at whites for “objectifying” the bodies of WoC (i will be the first to admit that this does happen but this is not a case of it) but not willing to understand that traditional Indigenous people have lived this way for thousands of years. This doesn’t make any sense.
To my knowledge, the majority of the world’s “white” people have lived in climates where it is too cold to not cover certain areas of the body. I guess we have forgotten that climate dictates to what groups of people wear and what clothes are available to them? Which brings me to my next point–people living traditionally (as closely to the Earth as possible) normally live in humid climates–therefore for them it makes sense to not be dressed in petticoats, brassieres, corsets, turtlenecks, etc. They are not Europeans!
All i’m asking is that people look at the context first.
Damn!
LikeLike
“Randy,
Whereas only a relatively small percentage of Europeans engage in nudist behaviors, and most do so in very narrow circumstances, toplessness is the traditional manner of the Yap people.”
Linda says,
Randy, have you ever been to Europe? because the British magazine, the Sun, has been famous for their “page 3 girls” long before the Internet.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/travel/sc-trav-0706-steves-20100706,0,6384393.story
and if you’ve ever been to beaches on the Continent, you most definitely have seen nude people lying around or swimming… because the European tribes people still walk around showing their bare a’ses for the everyone to see.
So the point is, if the photographer is going to take the picture, then show white peoples “full monty’s” on the cover of their magazines (the full, saggy glory that burned my eyes that we beachgoers are exposed to)
Why are they editing the shot to avoid showing the white tatas when everyone knows that in Europe, they have no shame when it comes to nudity.
why the double-standards about showing sophisticated Europeans sea-bathing naked vs a Pacific islander or African in some Remote, non-urban, under-populated tropical setting going about their daily business.
that’s a rhetorical question by the way, you can rationalize it anyway you want but they REAL world in America could not tolerate seeing white tatas on National Geographics because then white society would call it “porn”; whereas, a brown/black “tata” is OK because it’s scientific research.
LikeLike
@ Jefe
Here are the cases of National Geographic nudity I know about specifically. I am sure there are way more, particularly from 1900 to 1950 and from 1990 to 2010.
LikeLike
This is not that much about climate, yes it is hot where these people live but so is Miami and las vegas. I don’t see people naked there. Yes being naked is a part of these people’s lives, but there are nudists as well and its a part of their life and is passed down from parent to child. The issue is why is it America censors everything from tv, movies, pictures, etc. But when it comes to showing people around the world they use whites to tell their story and show them uncensored. And will show them the way they see them instead of letting the people have a say and tell their story in the way they want to be seen. There are white people who live off the grid and are nudists why not do a show about them and not censor their privates? Aren’t they living in nature like the people in the photos? Aren’t they away from civilization and nude?
The difference is culture and race. They love showing other people and putting a microscope on other people and what they do, but they never look at themselves in the same intensity. Example: when kanye interrupted taylor swift getting an award people called him a jackarse and were upset with him. When Aubrey plaza interrupted will ferrel at the movie awards nobody called her a jackarse. ITs the same thing with this they want to censor people here and act goofy when dealing with nakedness and sex. They even censor the simpsons movie, so if a cartoon character gets censored aren’t these people above cartoon charaters ?then why don’t they deserve to be censored.
LikeLike
@Mstoogoodforyall,
I am sorry i just do not agree nor can i make any correlations between Las Vegas, Miami and cities in Non-Western nations where climate does in fact dictate to what is considered modest (especially among people like the Himba, and the Gambele).
In fact i would argue that the beautiful young girl pictured above is much more mentally healthy and modest than seeing semi-clothed white women on Maxim, Cosmopolitan and the likes when i walk into a store. They clearly are selling sex–that girl above is not.
Yes i understand that Black women are objectified by whites and have been historically so–but as i said earlier– this is not the case here.
LikeLike
^perhaps not cities but traditional settings.
LikeLike
finnish sauna culyure and full male nudity, plus the guys pet bear Juuso, something NG would not show
LikeLike
perhaps not too good looking enough 😀
LikeLike
@phoebeprunelle,
It’s not the FACT of her toplessness that is objectifying, but the presentation of her toplessness for a white audience’s consumption that objectifies her. It’s not as if the Yap have any cultural need for topless photographs of themselves to be featured in international magazines, where a titillated audience gets to “tour” their homeland with an intrusive, judgmental gaze.
The objection to nudity in this context is an objection to exploitation and othering representation. Professional photographers and videographers frame their subjects in a deliberately meaningful way; the pictures ultimately selected for publication are never accidental or incidental, even when they are made to seem so. Moreover, the pictures are meant to replace the voices of the people being photographed with the photographer’s own, editorially speaking. So when you see a perky bosomed teenaged Yap girl staring awkwardly back at the camera, the message sent is: “THIS is what you can expect of the Yap people. Look at these naked girls! They didn’t even know they were naked! How exotic!”
And therein lies the insult.
LikeLike
@Sam,
Thanks.
LikeLike
I think Joseph Goebbels would be proud of National Geographic’s use of propaganda.
LikeLike
what I’m annoyed about is the fact that America acts like its so against nudity and sex but when it comes to this they say its in the name of science and education. We don’t see animals censored when it comes to mating and suckling their young because they are animals and people will probably not get aroused looking at it. They don’t show naked white people uncensored here because it would be considered porn and think it will arouse people, so they censor it. So by them not censoring these women its like they are saying nobody will be aroused looking at them[mammy stereotype} so it is not porn. Why is it when I see shows about tribal people on tv it says educational may contain scenes of nudity and the rating is only pg. so that means if you have a blocker on your tv it will go through and your kids can see naked people. shows with censored naked white people is rated tv 14 and up. Why not rate them the same both don’t show nudity in a sexual way and both view it as a way of life.
All im saying is its not equal. A white person can be nude and be censored and people can say well its because of where they live. If that’s the case then if America doesn’t want to show americans being naked then they’d be ok with showing Europeans naked and say that is their way of life and culture. Its ok to show naked people from unindustrialized places but not people from developed parts of the world? We pretty much look the same naked or at least I would think, so once you’ve seen one you pretty much seen em all. So why are they covering up some but not all. why do we censor when people put up the middle finger but not naked people from tribes? don’t we all have a middle finger and know what it looks like, don’t we all have privates and know what it looks like. All im saying is if you want to act like a censored channel then censor everything. I’m mostly talking about national geographic because I don’t see this hypocrisy from other channels. When I watch the independent film channel they uncensor everything not just one group of people or certain people from certain countries. Nat geo is not looking too much at context because if they were they would show people uncensored at nudists beaches that aren’t in a sexual way. But to them anything involving a white person in a developed country is sexual. I don’t have this tribe to compare to a white tribe because there really aren’t tribes of white people living like this in an unindustrialized place. if they took pics of white tribes and didn’t censor it and didn’t censor these people then I wouldn’t care.
LikeLike
I guess the only way to deal with this is for a non-profit organization to go after each instance, check to see if the subjects know what was done with the photos and if they signed a waiver form. If not, help them sue Nat Geo, or at least join a class action suit.
Maybe they take photos of people where they are not afraid of legal repercussions (or at least media bashing).
LikeLike
@abagond way to be ‘thorough’
LikeLike
I remember the subscription my parents got of Nat Geo, growing up. And my brother would run for the mail after school, skimming through for the nude photos, so in essence it was his first “playboy” mag. 🙄
LikeLike
@ Jane Laplain:
What you said, sounds like a perfect, explanation.
LikeLike
@ Sam
You Fins and your saunas!
Admit it — you like them more than sex!
LikeLike
Personally, I have never found these kinds of photos to be sexually titillating nor abusive, as nudity/partial nudity is a way of life for (most) of the peoples who are featured in such photographs. It would be different if it was not these peoples tradition to go uncovered in some capacity and Western photographers then went to their lands and asked the people to appear partially nude for their photos anyway (as is said to have been the case with the Tasaday people of the Philippines, as was mentioned by commenter ‘Jefe’).
I won’t make a judgment call as to whether these tribal peoples are amoral, immoral, backwards or uncivilized, and I most certainly don’t expect Nat Geo to go to their lands and tell them to put some ‘draws’ on (or to take them off) or else they can’t be photographed.
Perhaps the answer is for Nat Geo type periodicals to refrain from publishing photos of groups who have a tradition of going unclothed (in the Western / US sense of that term), since, truthfully, there will alway be individuals who will be titillated by these photos, or who will object to the them based on on racial or moral grounds et cetera….
LikeLike
Reblogged this on African Essence and commented:
I found this article to be interesting. I was unaware that this was taking place. The sexual exploitation of brown people continues to plague this world. Why do people have to be treated a certain way because of their skin color! This hurts. I am so tired of feeling this way. Always having to be on guard because my skin color. God, please!
LikeLike
@king:
Yes we do.
LikeLike
Yea, you (as in the rhetorical) need to understand “context”…
@Fiamma, finally you brought a voice of reason on this topic.
LikeLike
Also–I think Linda mentioned it above, but whites in the Western world can be seen photographed nude. Check out the women on the beaches in Denmark…but then again if nudity (in an everyday context, e.g. bathing at a beach, working in sweltering heat) equals sexual arousal–then you probably shouldn’t. 🙂
LikeLike
@Peanut, about your pic–probably not as Nat Geo features editorials that have a different context, but Uwe Ommer already has–its called Black Ladies. My husband had the book when we first met.
Not to be discouraged, he also created Asian Ladies and Do-it-Yourself which featured white women taking pictures of themselves nude. Had nothing to do with sex but celebrating the feminine form.
LikeLike
Linda:
You’re trying to draw broad conclusions based on a single photograph. To answer the question, it’s probably because Europeans tend to be naked in public only when sea-bathing and such, whereas the Yap are always topless.
Linda:
Let’s consider your premise. If it’s true, then you would expect Nat’l Geographic to more frequently show naked black / latino / asian people from industrialized cultures, and I haven’t seen that they do.
A more fitting explanation is one of culture and context, rather than race.
LikeLike
Thanks for answering my question from the other thread…
If you read German magazines and some French ones (I haven’t read or seen others in Europe), you’ll see “white” people naked (who are not posing). But in the French ones, I don’t think you’ll see men’s penises…
The American position on this is an extreme of hypocrisy.
LikeLike
Well, Nat Geo is just going to have to get more white breasts and genitals in their issues…
LikeLike
Agreed on that B.R.
LikeLike
Things I am shocked by when living in the US: separate locker rooms for adults and kids. No nudity in locker rooms with people of the same sex… What ? So what are locker rooms for then ? Not to undress and dress ?
And this behavior is spreading in France it seems. Last time I went to the public swimming-pool (after not going for years), there was a “nu interdit” (nakedness forbidden) in the SHOWERS ! WTHeck ! So how are you supposed to shower ? I found that ridiculous. I *think* it may be due to the islamic influence as some swimming-pools started to arrange for specific times for Muslim women. Which created an outrage in all circles. Since the pools are public, they can’t be private.
LikeLike
Cornlia, why are separate lockers for adults and kids shocking?
There are a lot of perverts in the world.
I don’t even like sending my 8 year old nephew into the men’s bathroom.
LikeLike
“Randy,
You’re trying to draw broad conclusions based on a single photograph. To answer the question, it’s probably because Europeans tend to be naked in public only when sea-bathing and such, whereas the Yap are always topless”
Linda says,
and who cares is the Europeans are nude half-a day vs most of the day (and I seriously doubt that the Yap are Always topless)
I’ll take your answer to my question as “No Linda, I’ve never been to Europe, so I did not realize that Europeans like to expose themselves and that it’s culturally acceptable to be nude”
BOTH Europeans and Yaps/Pacific islanders, certain African groups CULTURALLY go nude and have no problems being nude — for Whatever reason they decide to go nude — it doesn’t matter — the photographer had a choice to show the Europeans genitals and the photographer Chose not to —
Did you read Abagonds list:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2013/05/23/national-geographic-nudity/#comment-171731
you’re agreement with me is not wanted or necessary because the results can already be seen by the omission of white genitals on ANY cover of National Geo in the name of “scientific research” — not one white “tata” bared for the world to see.
LikeLike
I like your take on dressing rooms, Cornlia, the hip dance chereographers had co ed derssing rooms…I thought that was really natural and healthy
LikeLike
Linda:
And how many non-white European or East Asian “tatas” do you see? Thus, my claim is that the difference is culture, not race.
LikeLike
Good work as usual Abagond. Thought you’d find this interesting:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326680/King-Swaziland-wants-make-14th-virgin-bride–let-stay-UK-Womans-plea-asylum-fleeing-African-monarch.html?ICO=most_read_module
Mind you, this is a conservative middle England newspaper. That same day there were articles of oil paintings of nude European women but their breasts were blurred out to protect those white women.
LikeLike
“Randy,
And how many non-white European or East Asian “tatas” do you see? Thus, my claim is that the difference is culture, not race.”
Linda,
Now you’re weedingly down to the ridiculous Randy…and making no sense. the Europeans are a group of people that has public nudity, as part of their Culture.
Who cares if a Chinese or Korean “tata” hasn’t yet been displayed, that has nothing to do with this discussion. According to Abagonds list, they’ve shown Filipino, so
stop being dishonest about the “motives” of why black and brown genitals are more commonly on display. (I won’t even say intellectually dishonest because at this point, you’re just disagreeing for the h’ll of it)
Africans, Pacific islanders, and other “exotic” brown people ARE NOT the only group of people who go nude in public from time to time… Europeans (aka the white people who live in Europe and are not Americans) also walk around nude in public places — it’s part of their CULTURE–so the magazine should “show it like they see it” in their stories — but they Choose to disguise white nudity.
it’s the “Race” of the people being photographed that dictates if the photograph ends up showing their bare genitals in the magazine and there are NO white European genitals or breasts on the cover, even though their Culture accepts nudity in public.
National Geographic has had ample opportunities to show their European subjects in the nude but they Chose not to — European nudity is edited or omitted. (they even did an article on American nudist camps and still didn’t show them nude but they showed Josephine Baker nude, she was black American and her culture doesn’t accept nudity in public)
It’s not geographically easy to find and photograph an African Surmese stick fighter or Amazonian Amerindian either, these photographers are going out of their way to locate these people …they live in Remote parts of the world; whereas, you can trip over a nude European laying on the beach at any time of the day.
LikeLike
I think it’s wonderful. The human body is beautiful, and nothing to be ashamed of. Yes, It’s a little odd that they only seem to portray people of brown skin, but perhaps they are the only ones left that live close to nature all their lives, like we are all intended to, not just a beach going white person, that doesn’t want tan lines. As far one color being closer to animals…we forget, we are ALL animals…not separate from the delicate ecosystem that we are actually part of, it’s only our stupidly frail egos that have us believe that we are somehow above other creatures. I personally, as a white woman, am envious of the freedom they enjoy. I live in a hot climate. I would love to be able to get away with wearing less, if anything. It’s just too damn hot here…but if I did, I’d get thrown in jail, if I left the confines of the privacy fence in my yard. To me, that’s just assinine. as a matter of fact, it’s legal for women to go topless in the city I live in. I think I may just start taking advantage of that. It’s about time we started desensitizing to bare breasts, and I’m tired of seeing all the guys at the park shirtless, and cool, while I would cause a ruckus, even though legal, without one.
LikeLike
This is a false equivalency. Now you’re just looking for victimhood.
Few white cultures still walk around naked, at least nowhere as many as “brown” ones. I don’t find any of the pictures in National Geographic to be “erotic poses”. In fact, there was a two-page display of culture in Boston, showing semi-nude children playing near a water fountain. Some where white, some weren’t. What’s the outrage?
LikeLike
“Few white cultures still walk around naked, at least nowhere as many as “brown” ones.”
Linda says,
Sorry sir but that is a false statement…there are Way more white Europeans that can be found walking around nude on a beach in Europe than a black or brown person walking around nude in Swaziland or Papua New Guinea.
its because publications like National Geographic choose NOT to showcase nude white bodies doing their CULTURAL activities (sauna, sun bathing), why people such as yourself remain ignorant to how other people around the world really truly live.
LikeLike
@ mcheng
Thanks to the rise of Islam and Christianity in Africa and the fall of Christianity in Europe, public nudity is, if anything, much more common in Europe than in Africa. But you would never know that from National Geographic. Why is that?
There is also the double standard in how brown nudity is shown compared to white nudity. If they so value science over prudery then why the double standard? Why are white people placed outside their scientific gaze?
LikeLike
Food for thought, and to add to Linda’s post:
European films have way more nudity than American ones. It is often quite natural and organic, just like nudity happens in real life. However, European films get censored when shown in the USA.
Nudity: the Swiss and Germans will change into their bathing suits right there and there on the beach, quick and efficient but without hiding. The Brits and the French will execute incredible maneuvres under a towel…and in the end, something is always flashing and it is hilarious and draws attention to them… while the Swiss and German require you to be really on the case if you want to see anything, cos they are so quick.
What is modesty? in my opinion, a culturally acquired emotion meant to make you feel less worthy of the human race, a lesser person because you are naked. Get rid, get real: we are the same worthy person no matter what we wear or not, and if the others do not think so, their problem. Problem indeed as it says a lot about how clothes dependant their self-esteem is.
White people look more naked than non-white, and non-white look better when naked. This is the reason why the whites are so bent on getting a tan when naked or in bathing suits.
LikeLike
[…] National Geographic nudity […]
LikeLike
[…] National Geographic nudity […]
LikeLike
[…] tribal nudity in National Geographic […]
LikeLike
Agabond, I am not sure but doesn’t PETA do a lot of nude protesting. It is the closest thing I can thing of mostly or partial white nudity in the media. Still there is a lot of censorship of those protest.
LikeLike
This is despicable.
I don’t understand why whites often have such a sexual preoccupation with Blacks (and other non-Whites). Even when it comes to children.
Even from my own experiences, something as simple as eating/drinking a chilled drink like a Wendy’s Frostee or things like a 7/11 Slurpee walking down the street, I sometimes get white dudes staring me down intently as I’m sucking on my drink’s straw. It makes me so uncomfortable noticing that. I shudder to think what those creeps might be thinking when doing that. Gross!
Abagond talked about this (i.e. the hyper-sexualization of Black women and children) in a past post.
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/the-jezebel-stereotype/
I just don’t understand where this sexual deviance directed at us comes from. I know back then (and even to this day) they’ve stupidly seen as sub-human, but still. SMH.
LikeLike
Socalled tribal nudity is shown in NG magazine because these whites do not consider blacks and browns as human deserving of dignity. Also white males have a fear of vaginas hence the reason you never shall see a vagina of any female of any color unless it is in their pathological sickness called pornography. I think they love showing the penis of Black men especially as it somehow relates to their demented desires, jealousy and love of lynching.
LikeLike
WOOOOW. This pic pretty much sums it all up. I would love for a race realist to explain that there is no racism here.
http://www.lipstickalley.com/f374/something-about-picture-bothers-me-565214/
LikeLike
^ thanks for that pic it sums it up perfectly. black women and woc are not worthy to be censored and the white woman is too worthy to be uncensored. I know ppl gonna say well its their way of life and nudity isn’t a part of the white womans culture so she must be censored. Ok nudity is part of being human, nobody’s privates are that different from each other to where one deserves censoring and protecting and the others don’t. They don’t want ppl to see naked white women and view them as objects or uncivilized but if other women do it then its fine for them to be viewed in that way. poor cindy lou can’t be uncensored or the evil lusting black males and males of color will want to rape her so no they must censor them. THat picture seems like a compare and contrast thing, like look at the “savage” black women with no shirt on u can see all there is no mystery u see what she looks like naked. But oh the white woman must be censored to leave something to the imagination and look more civilized so ppl respect her.
LikeLike
@mstoogood,
You bring up a good point about the assumption that horny blk men lust over white women. Lol. Whites really think we hold their women as trophies of some sort when actually white chicks happen to be easy pickings so that’s all. the low hanging Apple gets grabbed more.
LikeLike
I also wonder if national geographic has ever uncensored white skin ppl. Have they ever done a photo or show with naked albino tribal ppl and had them uncensored like this http://31.media.tumblr.com/0861227c375a077007a1382c3a479a53/tumblr_mlzl0tKNFA1s9pi93o1_500.jpg
LikeLike
I understand what the author is conveying, but I have to say that continental Europe is not shy about taking clothes off. Certainly not in my experience!
The Scandinavian and Germanic nations were quite comfortable with nakedness. I found the Germans were most strident about being naked, because it was important for healthiness, along with fresh food, running through the forests — naked of course — and then jumping into freezing lakes. All perfectly normal.
Nudism, or the culture of free body culture (Freikoerperkultur), for the Germans, was like a Resistance Movement against restrictiveness. Times change, as I don’t think the younger generation are like that. I don’t know they think is wholesome.
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBR5BomD3ug)
LikeLike
Last line: I don’t know what they think is wholesome.
LikeLike
[…] website goes on to explain, the groundbreaking work of their November 1896 issue was just the beginning of their inclusion of […]
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yup.
In my time in Denmark, women walked the beaches topless. No one laughed, or pointed it out–because, well…what’s to point out? It would be silly to point out breasts when people are at the beach to bathe.
LikeLike
I think that comment is reaching.
LikeLike
I just had a conversation with a coworker and one of his visits to Sweden and how they have Swedish baths. I am learning about how other cultures view things like nudity. It is no big deal. Viewing the photographs of different cultures, What is just normal for them and how I was raised in my southern and African American background. It’s interesting from an anthropological perspective how nudity is viewed.
LikeLike
I’m an African living in Norway, nudity here is not a big deal, once during the 7pm news, they showed a guy roller-skiing in the nude (having lost a bet) , penis flailing about and all (no public reactions) , some women go topless on beaches, they don’t restrict nakedness to “cable stations”. It’s not uncommon to see bare breasted women on beaches in Europe at all, the problem is, as many have mentioned before me, is that these magazines and certain photographers (just have a look on Flickr) fetishize black women, or women of color in general. You rarely see naked white persons in magazines unless it’s a pornographic magazine, or a magazine specifically created to show naked persons. It’s quite disturbing to see how obsessed some photographers are about bare breasted (very few Africans are actually walking around buck naked) African women. In some photostreams, the photos are almost always of women, and 90% of the time, they’re bare chested. (some are staged, and some portray them doing everyday work) .
LikeLike
I have been complaining about this topic for some time now. I brought this issue up once, at a presentation and was attacked with the defense, “It’s their culture.”
I pointed out that in some parts of Europe–France, The Netherlands, etc, baring of breasts is legal, and many European women do it. Yet, if they would never show the naked breasts of Europeans, and if they do, they blot it out.
Yet, they have no problem doing this to brown and blacks.
Everyone was speechless. What why do they do it? Because as whites, they afford a certain “dignity” to whites, in accordance to the belief that whites are civilized and “sexualized.”
For blacks and browns, they see them as primitive, National Geographic specimens to study, and therefore, they do not regard them as sexual, or “civilized” enough to get “respect.”
LikeLike
idk if i buy this one abagond. this one seems a bit of a reach for me. i think the point of national geographic is to talk about people groups that aren’t white. that was my impression ever since childhood, and i still think that. it’s aimed at white audiences, and it’s supposed to be a way of opening up people’s worldview and exposing them to different cultures. if it’s true that some of these people are still shown with no clothes on even when they clearly wear clothes in today’s time, yes, i agree thats wrong and misleading. from a western standpoint, the exotic nature of non-western culture is far more interesting to us than our culture.
LikeLike
National Geographic nudity (1896- ), also known as tribal nudity, is where National Geographic shows the bare breasts and penises of brown-skinned people but not those of whites. It has been well-known for this since the 1960s, though the practice goes back to 1896.
———————————————————————————————————-
You do realize NG/SI has also measured every body part of nonwhite people around the world, including genitalia?
It is my opinion that National Geographic and the Smithsonian Institution are the historical and anthropological wing of the white supremacy system. Research their foundings and you will see why. Without the exploration, maps and associated data they collected on nonwhite people, the imperial and colonial collectivization of nonwhite people would have taken far longer, cost more money, and resulted in the deaths and serious injury of far more white people.
White people have many organizations for the purpose of collecting information on the habits, social organization and cultures of non white people; They often know far more about us than we know about each other; not to mention more about us than we know about them.
How do you think Obama’s mother earned her paycheck?
These organizations do very important work. I will go as far as to say it is easier for a white person to get a job with the CIA or NSA than to work for National Geographic or the Smithsonian Institution.
Why?
Because white people have already written history. If the “wrong” bones or “wrong” ancient text are discovered, it could destroy everything people THINK they know about themselves, ESPECIALLY nonwhite people.
How can you dismiss certain information as “afrocentric negro babble” if white people reveal it?
For example, look how they have written Grimaldi Man out of the historical record:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimaldi_Man
Look at this quote:
“No new discoveries of this type have been made, though some have been reported (without substance or reference)”
Reported to WHOM? You can’t say no new “discoveries of this type have been made; you only know none have been reported; and even that could be a lie.
Look at it this way, if you invent a great new app, Apple or Microsoft may buy it for millions, but that don’t mean they have to sell it to the public? They can just lock it in a room and thereby continue to make you buy their BS and think there is no alternative.
It happens everyday.
And not just with fossils or nudity. When’s the last time you saw a photo of a bunch of dead white people? Or a dead white soldier?
Can’t remember can you?
But they show dead nonwhite people all the time; floods, civil wars, epidemics, starvation, Kaddafi, Saddam’s sons…
White people are the most pre-emptive people in the known universe and all their hard work pays off in the form of them rarely needing to resort to direct violence in order get what they want.
They have your mind because they have the words (and images) and if they have the words, they have your thoughts.
Once you have someones words and thoughts, it matters not what actions they may take.
*be advised*
LikeLike
I don’t know what the fuss is about. I think the last time I saw nude photographs of native people in an issue of the National Geographic was sometime in the late 1980’s – early 90’s ( Not counting old issues in library stacks, etc. ).
& In our present society, Americans / Westerners aren’t TOO shocked by photographs of a nearly nude Miley Cyrus ( Or maybe only slightly outraged by an adolescent Brooke Shields in ” Pretty Baby “, ” The Blue Lagoon “, & a book called the ” Brooke Book ” touted by Ms. Shields’ mother in the 70’s, I believe ), but we deem it politically incorrect & even racist to show native people in their native environment, dressed in native outfits which leave little to the imagination, or they wear nothing. Would we think it politically incorrect to show Americans, Canadians, Urban Australians & Europeans in Business suits or leisure – wear ?
As for shots of young native women, I remember an article about a family ( anthropologists ) visiting Papua N.G. in the 60’s that showed plenty of young adolescent natives of both sexes in the nude. It also showed their young daughter ( 15 – 16 yrs old, possibly. I can’t remember ) dancing topless – except for face & body paint & some reeds, shells & other native adornments – with some of the girls in a Papuan village. I guess N.G. couldn’t run that now unless they wanted to get sued for publishing child pornography.
LikeLike
[…] of Penthouse readers that held our attention with every issue our dads would hide under the National Geographics through the […]
LikeLike
It’s interesting is that you are WAY more likely to find public nudity now a days in Europe (where nude beaches abound and many countries have accepted nudity) than you are where most of National Geogrphic’s indigenous nudity comes from Africa and South East Asia (where many Islamic governments require women to wear certain clothes)
LikeLike
This is a bunch of politically correct nonsense. First of all, the fact is, with the exception of nude beaches in parts of Europe, whites simply don’t tend to prance around nude. The people in many of the exotic locals NG covers do.
Nevertheless, there most certainly have been white nudes in National Geographic. Moreover, the idea that “Latinas” and Arabs are “people of color” is a relatively recent political spin on anthropology. There are non-white and mixed race Latin-Americans of course but there are also lots of whites. The whole reason they speak Spanish and the place is called “Latin-America” is because it was colonized by whites from Spain.
Arabs are also racially Caucasian and are basically just a somewhat swarthier variety of the same phenotype found in Europe. Some are darker than others but calling them “people of color” is really a bit much. Most Arabs in the Levant countries are more or less indistinguishable from Southern Europeans. The differences between Europe and the Middle East are really more cultural than racial. Have a gander at Bashar Assad for crisakes; he’s whiter than George Bush with pale skin and blue eyes.
LikeLike
Abagond is a Bleeding – heart liberal whos big on how all Europeans / Americans of Caucasian ancestry should feel guilt for what their ancestors did 100 – to 300 years ago. It gets old after the 1st few iterations.
By this reckoning, Walt Disney is a racist dick for his portrayals of blacks in his animated films. We should dig his corpse up & smack it around ( if he wasn’t cremated ) !
LikeLike
@ M.L.
1. Please give examples of white nudes in National Geographic.
2. Most Africans do not prance around nude either. If anything they are currently more modest than Europeans.
3. The idea of Arabs and Latin Americans as lesser beings than Europeans and Anglo Americans goes back to at least 1821:
By 1920 at the latest this difference had been explicitly racialized:
LikeLike
@ zathra
1. Walt Disney was a racist dick.
2.
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/11/17/the-feelings-of-white-people/
LikeLike
National Geographic’s double standard is to show the world indigenous tribal nudity but to have white so-called naturists stay “modest” with the blurring of private parts:
(tribal nudity #1)
(tribal nudity #2)
(tribal nudity #3)
vs.
(white nudity – blurred)
More double standard:
(bare-breasted)
(white woman’s breasts – blurred)
(tribal nudity – male private parts)
(white man’s penis – blurred)
LikeLike
Unfortunately, the image of the Dinka warrior did not show, but you get my point. Thanks.
LikeLike
Look at the african women and then look at the pictures of the white they are all ugly. I have alway love a pretty ebony women and there are many. Most of the white women think that they are better than anyone.
LikeLike
I like to see hot naked dark skinned women. I am blond and blue eyed. Yeah for fetishization of “the other” especially on the part of hot dark skinned women.
LikeLike
What the hell’s wrong with celebrating diversity ?
There are similar images on the Voyager record on the Voyager space probes now leaving our solar system. We wouldn’t want extraterrestrials to think humans were all one single color, no diversity, no differences.
LikeLike
White people have a similar standard regarding photographs in war zones. Its not easy to find pictures of dead white people (especially U.S soldiers); but dead nonwhite people, especially black people, are always front and center.
All people are sensitized to the image of a dead white person because we rarely see one that clearly died from their wounds; but we are desensitized to dead nonwhite people because they showboat those images.
I remember how shocking it was to see the body of that dead white Delta Force soldier being carried/dragged thru the streets of Mogadishu after the Black Hawk down raid.
Why was I shocked?
The white supremacists teach non white people to have reverence for dead white bodies.
LikeLike
@ thwack
Yup. This post was going to cover both nudity and showing dead bodies, but I could not think of a name that would cover both.
LikeLike
Michael Cooper’s images above are from National Geographic? When? I’ve been reading (well, mostly looking) at NG my whole life and I don’t recall these images. And yes, as a growing boy, I was on a lookout for bare breasts (though I also learned about much, much more besides). Granted, there were gaps in my exposure, once I no longer lived at home, so I’d like Mr. Cooper to cite the dates. I have a strong hunch that the old white people are in a snapshot from a nudist colony (and NG shows very few snapshots or any description, expert photography being one of its hallmarks) and the two of younger people are pretty obviously from Discovery Channel’s Naked and Afraid. Cooper may be making a point about the larger culture, but I think it’s actually off the mark: I quite clearly remember carefully shadowed and blurred groins of both sexes in the NG, from the days before Photoshop.
I grew up in West Africa in the 60s, so NG wasn’t showing me anything I wasn’t already seeing in daily life. In those days, most village children were generally naked, boys completely and girls with a modesty garment, essentially a G-string. At some point girls graduated to sarong-like waist wraps, but women in general would go bare-breasted when they were working in circumstances that would get them dirty or wet. Thus I grew up seeing the full range of their progress those life: budding, proudly maternal, depleted. My missionary parents never made any attempt to shield me from these sights–if anything, they seemed to consider them entirely natural, even admirable.
Nowadays, you very rarely see naked girls in Africa, not even toddlers. We have been very successful teaching Africans that nakedness in children is improper and that breasts are always to be covered. So even the poorest, most isolated people dress their children in ratty old “Goodwill” cast-offs from America and Europe. They would rather dress their children in hot, filtered rags than let them run around in the world’s most washable attire. It’s not uncommon to see little village girls dressed in ridiculous taffeta party dresses, no doubt polyester, because in addition to our dubious largesse in used clothing we have sold them the very notions of prurience discussed here. Nowadays, nakedness is no longer a marker of “tribal” conditions but of extreme poverty–in other words, of shame–and I think that’s not a change for the better. Add that to your recipe for racist cocktail.
National Geographic has gone through almost constant evolution, sometimes in (even measured and thoughtful) response to controversies like this here. Their original brief was quite self-consciously science (yes, with all the ethnocentric biases of the anthropology of the time–and also its genuine questing curiosity). By the time of its popular acceptance into American homes, it was quite middle-class, even conservative, but it was also doing the valuable work of familiarizing many people with the vast realities of life on the planet, of humanizing, however inadequately, the Other. Is it possible that there so few (or no) images of white nakedness because in fact public nudity was no longer an aspect of white cultures ANYWHERE? (And before you start throwing European beaches at me, when did adult toplessness become common in Europe?) I recall depictions (illustrations) of naked white breasts in articles about Pharaonic Egypt, from when we still imagined ancient Egyptians as more European than African. In the 60s, the Geographic could be almost right-wing, with Curtis LeMay (the Air Force general who wanted to nuke Viet Nam) on the board of directors, and admiring articles about the armed forces. Nowadays, it is quite outspoken about climate change, technology development (and its perils), and even the destructive legacy of globalization it could be said to have advocated. In other words, it’s not a monolithic institution.
There are legitimate questions about NG’s handling of race, exoticism, and gender being discussed here, and no simple, final answers. And first we need to check our glasses carefully; they are often scratched and smeared.
LikeLike
[…] Boyte’s The Geographic Needs a Nude Attitude Adjustment [sic] and Abagond’s article, Tribal Nudity in National Geographic. In the latter, the comments are as interesting as the blog post […]
LikeLike
How interesting it is that these wonderfully advanced civilizers would want to take hundreds of thousands of photographs( if not millions) in far flung places of us savages, yet (not long ago) should a Black man look at a pure white woman. he could get lynched and pure white women could enjoy a picnic under that tree.
LikeLike
Maybe they view dark skinned indigenous people as savages.
LikeLike
National Geographic is at it AGAIN! Not with tribal people of color, but with every-day, non-tribal people of color.
National Geographic’s December 2015 issue titled ‘Mary – The Most Powerful Woman in the World’ shows it only nude picture of a pre-bathing Haitian mother and daughter in the sacred Saut d’Eau falls of Ville Bonheur, Haiti (pages 48 and 49). The position of the naked mother allows one of her breast to be exposed. The daughter (a toddler) is resting on her naked mother’s body at a side angle. Although naked, none of the daughter’s private parts are revealed (thank God).
Whites, in general, and the staff of NGM, in particular, have a crazy obsession with Black and other non-White people’s naked bodies.
The photograph (of the naked Haitian mother and daughter) was taken by Diana Markosian
The ‘Mary’ article was written by NGM staff member Maureen Orth (award-winning journalist, special correspondent for Vanity Fair, and suspected white supremacist)
LikeLike
Wow. You guys really hate white people, huh? Perhaps you should focus on your own people first (*coughcoloredrappersdemeaningwomenandpromotingviolencecough*) before attempting to blame ALL white people for your problems?
Also… SAY MAH NAME
You loyal
You grateful
You… uh… SAY MAH NAAAME
LikeLike
@ Humanity is cancer
A white American woman wrote:
“If America is the culmination of Western white civilization, as everyone from the Left to the Right declares, then there must be something terribly wrong with Western white civilization. This is a painful truth; few of us want to go that far. … The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballets, et al., don’t redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—its ideologies and inventions—which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself.”
She was not wrong. “The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone—”, not humanity.
It is ONLY the white man and woman wherever they have invaded, been un able to live in peace and harmony with other people. Just because you belong the same group of beneficiaries of genocide, slavery and Jim Crow, don’t conflate your group’s inhumanity to man with the rest of the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@taotesan
Yes!
(It is good to see your writing back a full strength.)
LikeLike
@ Afrofem
🙂 Thank you!
I have a long, limping comment to you on the ‘commenter’ if you haven’t read it already.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@taotesan
Which thread contains your “long, limping”comment?
LikeLike
@ Afrofem, Mary Burrell and Deb
It is on the ‘commenter’ thread.
LikeLike
@taotesan: Brava:👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
LikeLike
I’ve shown this post many times to people to illustrate something I’ve noticed about American television. This post can easily be applied to sex scenes or murder scenes whether fiction or on the news. The browner or more “foreign” the people, the more blatant or graphic three exposure of their bodies will be.
LikeLike
you are all trying too hard. for whites its unusual to be naked. for the blacks and browns everyone is naked… for whites youre the odd one out.. the maladjusted freak or whatever.. the one who LEFT normal society to go join a nudity club.. that you had to actually go online or something to even find one to join….the blacks and browns aren’t even afforded that mindset.. of choosing it..get a grip.
whites have options..;. the naked people.. don’t even think of options and behave in their nature…they aren’t naked on laptops ya know.. the whites are(naked on laptops by a choice..their parents aren’t also naked) …didn’t know humans could be this dumb. I think its jealousy that lowers your IQ
LikeLike
its nice the naked blacks and browns now want dignity but it comes with a price..truth is not one of them think of it.. only you guys here who happen to also be black and brown use them(their photos) for your mental illness…we all know that now. the gig is up.
LikeLike
@ not humans
“…didn’t know humans could be this dumb. I think its jealousy that lowers your IQ”
Now we know why you are here rambling like a hurt child. You poor thing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Afrofem:
Must be a full moon!
LikeLike
@Herneith
There was a solar eclipse on Sun. 2-26-17. A different kind of lunacy.
LikeLike
Niggers were in fact one of the later groups to be civilized, and most still aren’t.
LikeLike
^^^ allowing this comment through as a pet lizard comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Much obliged.
LikeLike
@Yogibreeze
In 2012, a commenter on this blog named Sam accurately described life for Europeans from the fall of the Roman Empire to the 1800s. He wrote it in real simple language so you would be able to understand his meaning.
Here is an excerpt:
You can find the entire comment here:
https://abagond.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/blacks-are-just-as-racist/#comment-130704
While the Europeans wallowed around like animals in their cold, dirty portion of Eurasia, the rest of the world:
➨ traveled huge distances (like the Polynesians exploring and settling the Pacific)
➨ traded with one another (like the Africans who traded in salt, ivory and fish and with with other Africans throughout the continent and with Asia and the Americas)
➨ built cities with indoor plumbing and showers on the east coast of Africa,
➨ built floating farms in ancient Mexico
➨ invented paper, corrective lenses (eyeglasses) and gunpowder in China
You need to learn more about the world before you show ignorance here.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Now, now. Don’t be over sensitive.
LikeLike
@ Yogibreeze
Got bored over at Breitbart, huh?
LikeLiked by 1 person
[…] See here. […]
LikeLike
It’s about damn time that National Geographic acknowledges its racist past.
LikeLike
SankofaSista said:
“I don’t understand why whites often have such a sexual preoccupation with Blacks (and other non-Whites). Even when it comes to children.
Even from my own experiences, something as simple as eating/drinking a chilled drink like a Wendy’s Frostee or things like a 7/11 Slurpee walking down the street, I sometimes get white dudes staring me down intently as I’m sucking on my drink’s straw. It makes me so uncomfortable noticing that. I shudder to think what those creeps might be thinking when doing that. Gross!”
How utterly narrow-minded. First of all, you’re interpreting glances at you as “sexual preoccupation”. Secondly, you’re asserting that this is strictly a white-on-black thing, as if no black man looked your way…or perhaps if they do, you see that as a compliment.
LikeLike
[…] a chord because she called out National Geographic and other travel publications that traffic in “Indigenous nudity.” She then took her passion for cooking to the first season of Food Network’s […]
LikeLike
I remember reading a 1980s National Geographic that showed topless WHITE women who were clam divers. So in other words: Whites were not excluded
.
LikeLike
P.S.
The US Supreme Court has ruled that nudity is protected as “freedom of expression” under the first amendment. In practical terms that means you find LOTS of underage nudity of WHITE people on Amazon.com and other book websites. It is not illegal (as some of ye falsely claimed)
.
LikeLike
The writer of these paragraphs are obvious racist and always downgrading people of color. There from hotter region, they wouldn’t wear much too little clothing and even certain parts of Asia they would go topless. Caucasians from colder region and religion reasons is why they wood be more clothes. So to make it more of a race-based reasoning and explaining that people of color are not human or desirable it just Blanton ignorant and racist
LikeLike
Of course, their cultures don’t consider nudity to be private the way ours do. No respectable Afrikaner woman would be caught dead posing on a top less beach, but the French seem to think nothing of it.
I wouldn’t feel humiliated if a woman I wasn’t related to hugged me, but an Orthodox Jewish man would.
So it comes down to cultural differences…cultures where women are okay being bare chested in public have their bare female chests in magazines, cultures that don’t, don’t.
LikeLike