National Geographic Explorer sometimes shows naked people–usually undeveloped cultures who find no need for clothes. No problem! Of course National Geographic started publishing shortly after the establishment of Imperialism and Colonial Rule in Africa. For those who don’t know, this is when white European leaders divided up Africa. It was a time when most Europeans viewed Africans as inferior child-like creatures. So for almost a hundred years now we have been seeing pictures from different cultures around the world and there has never been a problem wish publishing photos of naked African cultures. But what would occur if pictures of naked white people were published in National Geographic? Has there ever been any?
Could it be that western culture has some unspoken quirky racist morality that says it’s OK to see black people naked because, perhaps “they don’t know any better?” However, a naked white person in the same context many would likely lead to book banning and be called “softcore-porn,” or whatever.
It could be that the photos historically have reflected an entrenched cultural elitism that made it acceptable to view “savages” in ways which would not be appropriate with “civilized people”.
It could also be that societies in which public nudity has historically been common tend to be located in very warm climates. Interestingly, the inhabitants of very warm climates have tended to develop darker skin pigmentation as an adaptation to the environment.
Hmmm, if only the National geographic photographers had forced their subjects to adopt European dress codes before having their pictures taken. Then we could have avoided this whole quandry.
There was an article within the last year or so about some island in the South Pacific (New Caledonia, perhaps). There was a photo of a beach scene that included a topless white female sunbather. As far as I can remember, it is the only semi-nude white female I’ve ever seen in National Geographic (but I don’t read it regularly).
But on the other hand, non-white nudes are now pretty rare in the magazine. My grandmother had a stack of the magazines from the 1930s through 1950s and I was surprised how many naked natives they showed compared to now.
Naked white women are very heavily featured in some other magazines. Maybe it is some kind of affirmative action, even out the playing field, equal exposure thing.
Well, “white people” tend not to have a “culteral dress” that includes nudity. In fact, I can think of none. There was a long distance shot of one of the french topless beaches, once, I think.
But I think crazy knows this- don’t you? So, why the query?
Daniel, perhaps he is trying to imply that National Geographic is part of the white-European-male-oppressive-violent-war-penis-culture. (I once went out with a girl who could say that all as one word. She only went out with me once because I refered to her as a “girl”. Go figure)
It seems to me that it has only been since WWII that the European taboo against nudity has infected the rest of the world. So older magazines and other sources that tried to show how people really lived tended to have more breasts. I feel that one of the greatest crimes against humanity has been the brainwashing of the young women of Bali into covering their breasts…
I saw Shaka Zulu on TV, uncut. The Black women were topless for extensive parts of the movie (as well as the men). Of course, there was that famous opening scene from “I, Claudius” mini-series. I can think of one conclusion from this: showing Black people nude is not obscene. In fact, displaying Black nudity is displaying power as well as displaying the erotically aesthetic art that the human body is. Is it exploitative as portrayed by the White-owned media? Yes it is. But hey, it makes me wonder about the self-counsciousness of the so-called civilized Whites concerning their bodies, as exemplified in the nudity bias in the National Geographic magazines.
Having read tons of National Geographic since I discovered them in 9th grade ages ago, I would say that the magazine mainly concentrates on primitive peoples, like the African, Brazilian, Australian, and tropical islanders. All natives. Back when I was reading the publication, most tribes still wandered around with only primitive weapons, but since then the same people have ‘been discovered’ by civilization. That means, they often wear shorts, hats, cook in pots and pans they traded for and some used to make pop top jewelry from the pull tabs of soda and beer cans.
There were no White primitive tribes.
Later, when the publication had pretty much covered the globe, and started looking into more modern cultures, shots of nude beaches in France and several other countries showed up, even White people in the Mountain communities of the US bathing nude in rivers and streams or old wash tubs by the hand well showed up. There were shots of kids running around the ol’ shack nude or almost nude, swinging from ropes at the swimming hole and so on.
National Geographic was originally mainly interested in old or primitive cultures at the beginning.
It really hasn’t been all that long since there were scores of undiscovered tribes wandering around in areas that were mainly mapped only by air and marked ‘unexplored’ on maps.
One exploration book I read, published in the 1890s, told of ‘trade guns’ sold to the Brazilian natives (real head hunters included). They were flint locks, though cartridge rifles were available. A large amount of steel wire was wrapped tightly about a rod that tapered slightly, then it was dipped in hot, melted solder and smoothed off. The rod was extracted and you had a smooth bore rifle barrel. Larger end out, it was affixed to a basic and cheap stock and traded along with powder and shot.
After a few shots, the barrel tended to unwind and a Native shooting a monkey might find half of his barrel sailing off after the ball when he fired. Some used the unwinding barrels like boleros. The guns could hold up for a time, but if a person added a bit too much powder in the charge, he might discover most of his barrel lying on the ground later.
These guns encouraged trade, were used as payment, were liked by the natives (who did not have access to anything better), inexpensive and inaccurate and breakable enough so no major attack against White explorers or developers could be mounted.
Not all of NGE is primitive, a lot of it shows European countryside, or industrialized nations. But just as there are parts of black humanity who do not where clothes, there ARE some small parts of white humanity subculture in which part of their identiy is not wearing clothes–usually in the form of nudist colonies, nude clubs, and nude beaches. Why aren’t these cultures ever “explored?”
Around 1988, I remember seeing a family of naked Germans on a beach in the Baltic Sea (or perhaps North Sea). They were pretty ugly, but certainly were butt-ass nekkid. And they were white. So there
Shit, I meant to say that I saw this in a picture in National Geographic. I was in fourth or fifth grade, so it would have been 1987-89, assuming it was a current edition at the time, which IIRC it was.
I did point out that at the beginning, the publication was interested in primitive cultures, but that later they started looking at others because there were so few left. I even pointed out how they examined mountain areas in America, with poor, White communities and photographed frequent nudity.
The have explored developed cultures, even going through New York City, dropping in at Moscow, Alaska and, actually, almost every nation in the world.
The thing I like about them, is that they are not biased according to race, nationality or religion. Everything gets treated with the same attitude.
>> Where are the naked white people in National Geographic?
NG specializes in a certain field which is showing people as they normally live their lives. I think it is safe to say most white people normally cover themselves up. Those black people were not asked to undress for the photo, rather, the photo is supposed to show how they live.
For your specific area of interest there are better magazines (like Playboy, etc). I find them very interesting.
I think you should go to a doctor and have that “war booty” looked at.
My memory does hold more than a few images of naked white people in NG. I think that sailor is right in that it has simply been less common to find white people in states of undress during the course of their daily routines.
I do remember a very old comic in NG that depicted two black women in a primitive village setting. One was nude and saying to the other something to the effect of, “National Geographic is coming. You’d better take off that dress.” This comic was in an issue dating back to sometime in the fifties.* NG and others have been well aware of the issue being addressed here for some time and they are comfortable enough to joke about it.
[sub]* I’m really not that old. I just grew up with a large NG collection.[/sub]
