National Geographic Apologizes
National Geographic has admitted to writing articles through a racist lense and released a formal apology. for a history of racism dating back to the 1920’s, and while some would consider the matter long closed, others believe that this is unacceptable regardless of how long ago it happened. The situation is very similar to magazines such as Time supporting the Nazi party back in the 1930’s, which was considered a legitimate political party at the time. The apology National Geographic released did seem sincere, but the forgivability of their actions remains doubtful.
The “race issues” included discrimination dating mostly from 1910-1945, although some offensive articles were published up until the 1960’s. The discrimination in question consisted of denial of membership in the National Geographic Society to African American citizens, biased racial coverage, and objectification of other races. Many articles National Geographic published between 1916 and 1966 referred to African Americans and Australian Islanders with language such as “uncivilised, savage,’ and ‘unintelligent.”
These racial issues were brought to light after National Geographic began working on their April magazine; an issue focused on race. They decided that it would be appropriate to address their magazines’ past. The Editor in Chief, Susan Goldberg, released the following statement: “It hurts to share the appalling stories from the magazine’s past. But when we decided to devote our April magazine to the topic of race, we thought we should examine our own history before turning our reportorial gaze to others.”
While National Geographic has certainly reprimanded the actions of their early staff, organizations such as ourselves at the Las Lomas Page aren’t completely innocent of problems from the past either. During many articles dating back to the mid-1950’s, we undeniably published what was sometimes questionable content. For example, we had a “Lady and the Knight” column which objectified women. We also published work that described women as man trappers and focused on women’s looks as their main contribution to LLHS. For this we are deeply sorry.
Overall, National Geographic did a good thing by apologizing, even if they were apologizing on behalf of another generation. They set a positive influence and their actions positively reflected journalists as a whole. While some may argue that the apology was unjustified and unnecessary as it’s no longer relevant, the idea was for them to give themselves a fresh, new start. We at The Page would also like a frsh start.
