National Geographic calls itself to task for its racist past


You sound like you’re ginger, and we all know what gingers are like.

Go back to gingerland, carrot.




And someone “guessed” that a sikh with a turban was an Arab Muslim and killed them.

But please, tell me how you can accurate distinguish between those 3 groups of people, then explain to us how you can also accurately tell apart Japanese, Chinese, and Korean. Then tell us how different Scottish, Irish, Welsh, and English people are JUST ON YOU LOOKING AT THEM.


Oh, so racism against GINGERS is a-okay now! That’s the real glass ceiling that Doctor Who - the GINGER ceiling! /s



Look, some of my best friends have been gingers. Plus, I certainly can’t be racist against them because I think they’re hot. You know… exotic? They’re not worse than normal people… necessarily.


Yeah, but you just can’t trust those gingers… I mean, I have gingers in my own family, but still. You got to watch out for them, you know. They just aren’t trustworthy, you know what I mean. Afterall, gingers have no soul, amirite!


Oh, you’re related to gingers?

You know that that makes you ginger too, right? It’s IN YOUR BLOOD.


NOOOOOOOO! It’s NOT true! I’m not a GINGER!


See how insidious gingers are? Gingerness invaded your genes, with its incompatible genetic values, and you didn’t even know.




There is one quibble I have with this statement that seems important to me: those who are identified as white, are certainly at an advantage in this system, but I don’t say it’s good for us. Living at the top of a violent, unstable hierarchy is not good for anyone. The advantage is only comparative. Benefit is universal, we would benefit from ending this system.


Well, it’s less about how we identify, and more about how you identified, with regards to race. It’s a phenomenon none of us have full control over, but that people who are identified as white have more control over and benefit from more often.

Agree, but it’s got to be white people (or people who are identified/identify as white) that need to do the heavy lifting here. People of color have been trying to dismantle that system, but it’s often been whites who stood in their way, and not just elite whites trying to keep a divided population - lower class whites often embrace whiteness itself, because it’s a psychic wage they can embrace.


But the thing is, when you’re on top of the heap and have a zero-sum outlook on life, any increase in the actual or effective rights of those “below” you seems to be a reduction in your own rights. We see this again and again with any form of institutionalized bigotry. My favorite examples are when men complain that women are dominating [field/conversation/classroom/major/etc], and when you look at the actual numbers, the women are still speaking a minority of the time and make up less than half of the population in that field. And yet the misogynistic men’s perception of the situation is that the women are talking too much and taking up too much space.


U mad bro?


Funny, before I heard about the focus of this month’s issue I saw this in Apple News yesterday:


I’m not going to tell you you’re wrong here, if this schema is what works for you, go with it.

And… Sunni VS Shia, orange VS green, hutu VS tutsi… None of those people care very much which category they are supposed to fit under when people in USia are talking about them. Lump it under, “divide and conquer”, that’s usually good enough.

In my schema, there are two kinds of difficult conversations : diagnostic and prescriptive. It’s hard to talk about what the problem is, exactly. And it’s hard to talk about what to do about the problem. But they are two different categories of thought, and it helps my sanity to keep track of which one we’re talking about.


The Japanese language has a lot of baked-in hierarchy, where proper phrasing has everything to do with whether you’re speaking to someone below you, someone above you, or a peer. American English isn’t so… “advantaged”.

Which is to say, I don’t think “benefit VS advantage” is going to mean much when POC are talking to each other or to white folk. But when white people are talking to other white people, I think it’s a distinction worth making.


Because the labels we’ve been using for race are fallacious. Indeed, they’re bloody ridiculous.

What’s all this “lying” that you keep going on about? Who’s doing it, and why do you think they’re doing it?

And what, for Christ’s sake, is your point here?

You’re sounding a lot like a “race realist,” one of those people with thoroughly racist beliefs who knows that if they say what they really think in most settings, they’ll get thoroughly shouted down or laughed out of the room.


Hey, check out all these nifty ‘new’ accounts this post inspired; color me surprised.

Seems like this is the intent, just IMO:


I think you meant