Maybe this is the confused melted pot Texan in me speaking, but aren’t those South American tribes, er, white?
Erm . . . Unfortunately, that depends on what you’re calling “white”. In the interest of maintaining my sanity, I don’t think I’ll participate in that discussion.
Smart decision.
Er, ya, I wasn’t going to bring it up either. Maybe the answer to this thread is “tans”?
Long time National Geographic reader here.
I remember seeing nude white people in all the above mentioned places. Western european nude beaches, eastern european spas and sweat lodges, Mountain people of the USA, Vegas show girls, Pacific islanders (not exactly white, but not black), Japanese shellfish divers, and one thiland man with breasts(a prostitute)
Yeah! The selection of naked people has improved greatly in recent years. I think you are operating on preconceptions and jokes that date from early 20th century.
{ding ding ding}
While in a meeting at work today I was thinking about this thread. I believe that the OP was operating under a false paradigm.
Despite the number of jokes about naked natives in NatGeo, I believe that there was an almost equal number of European breasts shown during the same period. Of course, the Eurotitties were in the “Art Treasures of Chelm” type articles, and not the “Shy and Gentle Fukawi Tribe” type of article. Do photos of paintings or sculpture count in the boob survey? They certainly worked for me back then…
See? That’s why I stay outa here. That is a SO MUCH better way to say it.
Since a photograph of a painting of a breast printed in a magazine is only one step closer to the breast than a photograph of a breast printed in a magazine…
Boobs are boobs however you get 'em, especially to a twelve-year-old boy.
Keep in mind that Nat Geo and also LIFE magazines sometimes showed White male nudes from the rear only. During WWII there were many shots of White male nudes from the rear in military settings - there was one shot of nude cadets in the St. Marys college swimming pool, in full color. No one objected to the nude males, so long as they were shown from the rear. Of course there were no photos of nude White females - that would have been pornographic!
However, Nat Geo and other mags had no problem with showing works of the great artists, such as Titian, depicting fully nude White females, so long as they were works of art. Nat Geo also showed full-frontal males in the form of statues, but not in photos or paintings.
Fourteen…and a half…years.
Dude.
Gotta admit, I do miss Danielinthewolvesden.
I thought I killed this thread back in 2000. Guess it needs a double-tap to be sure.
We need to merge this with the “naked swimming at the YMCA” thread.
Daaaay-um! Is this a record zombie or what? 15 years?
“Booooooooobs… BOOOOOOOOBS!”
Right. NatGeo occasionally does articles on white people, especially from areas where there are interesting cultural tidbits to talk about that the editors think the readers might be interested in. They’ve done a fairly significant number of articles on rural white country folk in various areas of Europe and North America and the cultural practices that they have preserved. E.g. in this fishing village, some of the elderly people still speak (older immigrant language) and wear (some old-fashioned article of clothing). Of course, rural whites tend to be rather culturally conservative to begin with and would be much more likely to dress more, say 1950’s or even 1890’s than they would to go naked.
Odd timing, but I just saw a BBC documentary about a BBC documentary that they produced in the 70s, where they had some young British couples build themselves an Iron Age settlement and live in it for 13 months, using only the same tools and materials as ancient man did.
I was rather surprised to see that they were showing the people run around all or mostly naked.
“You gotta get them in the head; they go down quicker.” - Officer Barbrady, South Park
Fifteen years and no one has asked “Where the white women at?”
When I was a kid in the late Sixties and early Seventies, I had a gift subscription to National Geographic, and yes, they still looked for excuses to snap pictures of nude/semi-nude African or South American tribes.
I’m sure they WOULD have done photo layouts of primitive nude white tribes in Greenland or Iceland if they existed, but there just weren’t any such groups.
I have no doubt the editors knew what they were doing, and continued showing nude girls in he rain forest long after that was of any real anthropological or sociological value. Regardless, they thought they needed some “legit” angle to justify publishing such photos, and couldn’t think of one to justify naked white girls.
I haven’t had a subscription in at least 30 years now. Does the magazine still do such pictorials, or have they long since ceased doing such things?
But would they know about shrinkage?