Trackbacks & Pings

1. Us and Them « 100% Juicy Juice on 14 May 2009 at 7:19 pm

   [...] and Them May 14, 2009 Filed under: Uncategorized — rociorayo @ 11:18 pm Posted HERE by Guest Contributor Missives from Marx originally published at Sociological [...]

2. Guest Post at Racialicious « Missives from Marx on 14 May 2009 at 10:22 pm

   [...] By missivesfrommarx My recent “Us and Them” post was picked up again as a guest post over at Racialicious. They have a lot of other good stuff so be sure to go on over and check them [...]

3. Wednesday Blogaround « The Gender Blender Blog on 14 May 2009 at 10:36 pm

   [...] We are teaching kids to otherize: American high school students learn that people around the world with dark skin are violent, dirty, and poorly dressed. No wonder American kids grow up to be American adults whose voting habits reflect the view that American foreign policy should be paternalistic. [...]

Comments

1. Eva wrote:

   I have a silly question. No matter what one does, isn’t someone always going to be the “other?” If everybody has glasses and one person doesn’t, that person will be called “other.”

   When I took Psychology 101, in 1977, the professor asked the class if people were more like each other, or different from each other. Though most of the class said different, the professor informed us that most people were more alike than different. Thirty-two years later and I still remember that.

   Posted 14 May 2009 at 10:06 am ¶

2. Thea Lim wrote:

   @ Eva

   If we’re just talking about you and me, then sure, one of us will be “other” to the other.

   But in the context of culture and society there are Others and there are Norms. In other words there are some people who are not “other”, they are “normal.” Like middle class white families who live in the suburbs and drive minivans and play hockey. (Even these families may be “othered” in some way below the surface, but the way we think about normal and abnormal doesn’t allow us to see that). Or young upwardly mobile professionals in heterosexual relationships who are well dressed and drink lattes. And then you have all your “others”: poor folks, people of colour, queer folks, people with disabilities, women, fat people…

   Yeah obviously someone is always “other.” But in terms of power, the only categorisation of “other” and “norm” that matters is the one that decides who has power and access, and who doesn’t.

   Posted 14 May 2009 at 11:44 am ¶

3. atlasien wrote:

   I’m actually not a big fan of using “Other” with a capital “O” all over the place… I think it’s better to be more specific. But “Others” aren’t just anyone who isn’t like you. Looking it from a sort of pragmatic universal human viewpoint, it’s a special kind of social role among many roles:

   peer
   authority figure/teacher/leader
   friendly stranger
   unfriendly stranger (enemy)
   pariah
   subordinate/disciple

   If you imagine a certain cultural group as several people surrounded by a chalk circle, the Other is the person who is forced to draw the chalk circle, and then has to stand on the circle edge or outside it. The group members inside use the Other to define the group by what they’re not. “We are the kind of people who would never eat whole raw fish with their hands” for example.

   Posted 14 May 2009 at 12:16 pm ¶

4. inkst wrote:

   I remember seeing those “What we eat” pictures floating around on facebook or something a while back. It was an interesting idea…

   Those covers are… …atrocious? Is that the right word? What is even happening with that small boy and the fish?

   Thanks for mentioning the book on National Geographic. I had never heard of it and plan on picking it up. I got myself a subscription to the magazine about a year ago because it was cheap and I remembered always liking reading it when I was younger. I still find it to be a good read, but I often question the viewpoints of it. The reporters and photographers (at least those pictured in the back) are consistently all white, and there is often a lot going on between the lines and images of what they present. Just in the last issue, there was an article about a town in Western China that’s dubbed itself Shangri-La, there was a picture of topless women bathing in a hot spring spa. It was, as is almost always the case with NG, a nicely framed photo, but I immediately questioned whether they would have shown a picture like that of a group of women in say, Iceland, or Wyoming. I think not. To me, it was a glaring double-standard and strong evidence of othering. Naked “other” breasts in NG are practically a cliche. I seem to remember an old jab you could throw at someone saying that their porn was looking at NG pictures. Wrong on so many levels…

   While that was an obvious example, there are many more that are more subtle, but evident nonetheless.

   Posted 14 May 2009 at 12:27 pm ¶

5. NSK wrote:

   I must say, a lot of what Missive from Marx’s analysis of the images are more personal assumptions than necessarily what everyone else will read from the image. Yes, the first cover with the fish has the gut instinct of striking one as disgusting and the “we” vs. “them” frame of mind certainly alters things. But then again, portraying smiling families around tables of food doesn’t give a real since of the diversity of living conditions in this world. In fact that makes them more palatable and acceptable to American sensibilities, in essence creating the same ignorance that we’re trying to combat.

   Also when I saw the second cover I didn’t think “that people around the world with dark skin are violent, dirty, and poorly dressed,” or get the impression that this was the message. First of all, how do you expect them to tell a story about child soldiers without giving some idea of the conditions that many child soldiers live in? Would you rather he be clean and wearing a tuxedo (or something more aligned with western sensibilities of good clothing)? It could have been worse, he could have been standing over the dead bodies of white women, completely smeared in their blood–that would give an idea of savagery by the “dirty, dark-skinned people of the world.” Here they are posing him to be pitied. He is menacing, frightening, but look he is also covered in dirt and wearing an innocuous children’s shirt–he is just a boy who has unfortunately been lead into a life of violence. Even the caption gives us this sense, telling us he has been “forced to serve” and that he is both “armed and underaged.”

   Posted 14 May 2009 at 12:43 pm ¶

6. gatamala wrote:

   One side of the camera sets the mental framework and the terms for the interaction. We don’t do that; I’m going to show you how they really are.

   Those pictures could have been taken at a NC pig pickin and or in Southside, USA.

   In the zip code series for NG, I caught a zip code near where I grew up. There is something about their positioning that puts a familiar object in a freakshow type position.

   Posted 14 May 2009 at 12:52 pm ¶

7. CDF wrote:

   No comment…the world can resemble “BizarroWorld” at times, but still if they’re (publishing industry) that short on staff who can produce decent imagery, they could call on me…that was part of my college major for pete’s sake. No wonder I never found employment in these companies!

   Posted 14 May 2009 at 12:56 pm ¶

8. Eva wrote:

   @Thea:

   Even in the context of society, there will always be an “other.” I think the issue is not to treat people who are different from the majority like outcasts.

   For instance, if most people in a country are heterosexual relationships, that should not mean that people who are not in those relationships should be denied basic rights.

   People who live in the suburbs and drive minivans can be “othered” by people who live in a place like New York City, where people don’t live like that; just like people who come to New York City, think we’re all nuts.

   Posted 14 May 2009 at 12:59 pm ¶

9. Erica wrote:

   I own a copy of the book those pictures are from (and I assume on which the article is based), Hungry Planet. It’s a VERY good book, with great pictures and an interesting comparison of dietary habits of families in various countries; I recommend it. I’m floored they’d pick the picture of the Inuit boy eating a fish to represent what the book/article is trying to convey… that totally misses the point (to examine commonalities and differences and healthy/unhealthy eating habits around the world) and just makes everyone go “ewwww!” The topic is more than interesting enough that you don’t need to use THAT image to draw in your audience.

   Posted 14 May 2009 at 2:19 pm ¶

10. Alston wrote:

    “The reporters and photographers (at least those pictured in the back) are consistently all white”

    Why is that? I have never heard of, say, a black photographer at NG, although I admit, I am not a regular reader…

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 2:39 pm ¶

11. Megan wrote:

    Ok, so the first cover is clearly meant for “shock” value. I can just see this being distributed and the first thing out of a U.S. teenagers mouth is “ewww” at that snotty nosed little boy eating a fish. Seems to be what the author was going for. Superwhack, but not surprising.

    I must however disagree with issues people have with the 2nd cover. The picture is true and there is no sin in that. Child soldiers in Africa are just that, children and underage. They are armed. They are dangerous. They are poor. They are dirty. They are dark and ashy. The issue is the way that Western journalists routinely portray Africa (and use Africa like its a country not a continent) to the rest of the world. The stories are what is disproportionate. But the truth still needs to be told. The truth is there in that striking photo that teenagers in the U.S. don’t usually get to see. I think the issue of child soldiers SHOULD be in a magazine that is targeted towards U.S. teens along with other pressing issues that people are facing. Maybe if journalists who take striking (if disproportionate) photos continue it will register that Africa is a place where babies die from diarrhea and malaria and chop people up with machetes and people are dying of AIDS left and right, people will pay attention. We certainly don’t pay attention to the statistics. A picture is truly worth a thousand words. Maybe it will move this next generation. I know its moved me to get off my butt and get a social work degree and work with survivors of these horrors that we as Americans have no concept of. If it takes a dark skinned, ashy little boy to get people to MOVE when it comes to human rights issues, so be it.

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 3:06 pm ¶

12. Kaonashi wrote:

    The fish that little boy is eating looks delicious.

    One thing that never changes regardless of subject is the covers tend to be of people who are attractive.

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 3:25 pm ¶

13. Arabi wrote:

    Is the author of this piece suggesting that we hide American children from the “otherness” of others. Oh no!
    Yes, they must not know the distinction between themselves and those who live over “THERE”.
    Let them all think that all kids around the world live just like them and have the same issues and problems and the world is a safe place for all, and etc.
    C’mon. That kid looked like he was enjoying that fish.
    It’s a reality. Others live differently from us. They’ll have to face that reality sooner rather than later.
    Actually, if you introduce a child to the differences of others at a young age they are probably more likely to develop a healthy appreciation for the “others” way of life.

    @Erica
    how is the picture of young boy eating raw fish missing the point. Yeah, they may say ewww! at first because we tend to find diets other than ours disgusting. But that initial reaction of disgust is overcome with continued exposure to the ways of others.
    “dark skin are violent, dirty, and poorly dressed”
    The fact that a story exposing the reality of child soldiers would conjure this image in the mind of the author is sad. And no, they can’t just absolve themselves by suggesting that they are simply simulation what others are thinking: admit, that is what you see.
    Lil’ Johnny needs to know that it’s hard out there for many of his peers and that no, not every one goes to a school that will prepare him to compete in an increasingly hostile economy and comes home to a nice, air conditioned house with Nintendo and Graham crackers for lunch.
    That lil’ Sekou was picked up from his village, taken from his family, given a gun and told to shoot the enemy while having to attend to all the needs of his commander, while sleeping on the forest floor and barely eating one meal a day. Maybe than Johnny will grow to understand that his way of life is not normal and the world is full of injustice and that maybe he should something about it rather than sitting on his ass whining about the cable and a girlfriend who won’t give him head and a job that sucks, etc.

    The truth is, folks think eating raw fish is somehow “barbaric” or “weird” and showing a non-white person eating raw fish is going to make white folk(there we are so concerned about how we look in their eyes) think non-whites are “barbaric” and “weird”
    NEWSFLASH: If someone sees that picture and thinks “Inuits are weird and barbaric” they probably already thought Inuits are weird and barbaric.

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 3:31 pm ¶

14. Chris Diaz wrote:

    I would be absolutely shocked if it wasn’t a white person or white people (maybe with a sellout or two) who put that together.

    The cover is clearly meant to evoke a “Oh, they’re gross and weird” response. And, obviously, you are right on about the use of the word “they”.

    This is basically the liberal racism, people who often think they are doing good (and sometimes do good) but still paint everything with whiteness.

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 3:52 pm ¶

15. Erica wrote:

    @Arabi:

    how is the picture of young boy eating raw fish missing the point.

    Because that picture alone, used to represent an article, misses the point of the book which it’s about. The point was to photograph a family with one week’s worth of groceries, as well as photograph their shopping, cooking, and dining, and accompany the images with a brief interview which described their attitudes towards food, source of food, how much they spend, and topics like that. The book explored a huge range of topics related to food, and discussed both differences and similarities between cultures attitudes’ towards food, dining, and health. And that certainly included discussion of methods of getting food that are likely shocking to most New York readers, such as the boy’s mother cleaning and butchering a freshly-caught seal in the hallway. But to condense all that complexity into one picture, “this boy snacks on fish”, and particularly to caption it “WHAT THEY EAT”, and call that representative of the book — is missing the point.

    If someone sees that picture and thinks “Inuits are weird and barbaric” they probably already thought Inuits are weird and barbaric.

    While that may be true, I’m not sure how that justifies giving them a picture which will only reinforce their stereotyped ideas that Inuit people eat nothing but fish and polar bears and deserve to be treated like weird, barbaric people.

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 6:28 pm ¶

16. method wrote:

    Arabi is right on. What “they” eat leads *into* what “we” eat. The way these materials are used is so that a teacher can “scaffold” her lesson plan around them. You hold up the cover and say, “what does this picture make you think of? Is this boy enjoying the fish? Do you like food that other people think is ‘gross’?” and then you go deeper into the magazine, reading together. The buzzword at National Geographic Children’s Publishing is “high-interest content”, so that the kids will want to read non-fiction. I bet you the second cover leads to a story about the causes of child soldiers and contains quotes from the children talking about how they want to live normal lives and even wish they could go back to school. Seriously, what could be better?

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 6:40 pm ¶

17. Erica wrote:

    I disagree. An educational discussion can be just as powerful without starting from a “THEM” perspective.

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 8:25 pm ¶

18. Elton wrote:

    The secret to selling a message to the masses is not to challenge their preconceptions, but to reinforce their blissful ignorance.

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 8:25 pm ¶

19. Arabi wrote:

    “But to condense all that complexity into one picture, “this boy snacks on fish”, and particularly to caption it “WHAT THEY EAT”, and call that representative of the book — is missing the point.”

    It’s a cover. Of course it cant condense, capture all that complexity. It’s supposed to pull you in while simultaneously giving you a hint about the contents. And given that it’s called “What they eat” it makes since that the emphasis would be on differences. Not everyone goes to the local grocery or cooks their food.

    “I’m not sure how that justifies giving them a picture which will only reinforce their stereotyped ideas that Inuit people eat nothing but fish and polar bears”

    My point was, if even you show a picture of an Inuit eating a hamburger, than many will still think they are weird and barbaric simply because they are Inuit. We are not necessarily responsible for the mistaken sentiments of others.
    Also, if we show them a picture of the kid eating a burger than the kid will think all they do is eat hamburgers or whatnot. A picture is inevitably going to leave A LOT out. I think the picture is there to lure the reader in where they can get the bigger picture.

    “deserve to be treated like weird, barbaric people.”
    This sentiment is unfortunate. If differences lead to people mistreating others than go right ahead and occlude/hide/cover all that makes us distinct from each other.

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 9:25 pm ¶

20. Afro-chan wrote:

    In regards to the ‘What They Eat’ cover:
    Based on Erica’s comment #15 (because I haven’t read the article) I would agree that the cover itself kind of misses the mark if it doesn’t reflect the article. That is an art direction miscalculation at best. The cover may have been chosen as a “Look at me!” exhibitionist kind of thing. (Ugh). How a teacher presents it does make all the difference.

    In regards to the ‘Child Soldiers’ cover
    There is no upside to child soldiers that I can think of. How could you show that and make it “lighter”? Why would you want to?

    The larger question is, “Does the magazine consistently show the negative/horrific sides of other cultures? Does it only show things we consider “strange” from a US point of view?

    As long as there is a balance I’m cool. For example even in the most impoverished and war stricken nations there are other aspects to life. People get married, hang out with their friends and such. If they are showing everyday life from then that is a good thing. People will form their own connections thus humanizing the “other” rather than creating “oh those poor pitiful people” or “they’re so uncivilized” feelings and a sense of detachment.

    The photos become an “us and them” thing when the articles center primarily around the photographers experience, thoughts and feelings in a different culture rather than the actual involved person’s own story. If the content accompanying the articles come directly from the people in the photos then that is a good thing.

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 9:33 pm ¶

21. Missives from Marx wrote:

    method: What could be better? Something that shows that the current social and political state of Africa is largely linked to colonialism. That’d be a start. How about a picture of the rich white guys who manufactured and sold that AK-47. Since parts of Africa has been ravaged by the diamond industry, how about a young white bourgeois American woman with blond hair wearing a diamond engagement ring with blood on her hands and standing over some corpses.

    Sorry about that. I’m in a pissy mood.

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 10:17 pm ¶

22. NancyP wrote:

    Yes, the cover headline should have been, “What We Eat”.

    This magazine may be aimed at the middle school age as well as at high school age, in which case a certain segment of middle school kids will see the boy-v-fish picture and say, “Kewl!” ( OK, I was an adventurous diner at that age, and never refused a dare to eat chocolate-covered ants, etc). Remember also that the high school age group had and has metal fans who might go for this fish-killing/fish-eating as a stage schtick.

    In my eyes, the pre-teen boy with rifle picture is meant to evoke sympathy and not fear. Key parts of the image (to me, at least) are the Barney-the-dinosaur t-shirt that the boy is wearing, and the unsmiling serious expression on his face. He doesn’t scowl, he doesn’t mug, he doesn’t look happy. He looks like an underage unwilling conscripted grunt (infantryman) caught up in war by accident of birth.

    Interesting that the junior NYT publishes what amounts to an anti-war front page image, when anti-war images are few and far between in adult-targeted MSM.

    Posted 14 May 2009 at 10:25 pm ¶

23. inkst wrote:

    I have to admit that I am surprised by the reaction that many readers have had to these covers. I had assumed that folks would more consistently see the problems with the photos rather than seeking to justify the editors’ choices.

    I do not believe that those of us who have an issue with the images are in any way advocating for young people in the US to not be made aware of global issues or to learn about different cultures, values, and ideals. Far from that. I think that these types of dramatic covers along with the headlines that accompany them actually IMPEDE real learning, because they reinforce the idea that “different” people are far away, exotic, and what we perceive as their problems are so far removed that they are deserving of nothing more than our sympathy at best.

    And for those that argue that it is supposed to evoke sympathy, I totally agree, but sympathy is a self-serving emotion, it is all about the person feeling it rather than the target of it.

    Child soldiers are a serious issue that deserve serious journalism, not pictures that reinforce stereotypes about the African continent and people of color in general. Missives for Marx’s response above is blunt, but totally true. For anyone asking for the truth to be told, the truth that needs to be examined are not only the conditions that people live in, but some of the historical and actual roots of the conditions. Looking at these roots draws connections to our behavior, to our choices as consumers, to the increasing interconnectedness of our global society, rather than evoking, “oh those poor little African children.” Makes me think of the old “$1 a day” charity drives on TV with the small children with distended bellies and flies on their eyes.

    I personally love learning about just about everything, which is part of the reason I subscribed to NG, but it would be irresponsible for me to not consider the perspective that is being offered by the magazine, to think about the lens that is provided by the editors, writers, and photographers.

    All of the decisions that go into a cover like this are very purposeful and are based in marketing decisions. Just like the Avatar casting. Please don’t try to dismiss them as just a cover or a good way to teach young people about the world. If you think that, you should read some more posts on this site about white perspective, mass media, and portrayals of people of color around the world.

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 9:17 am ¶

24. Lxy wrote:

    The New York Times’ Upfront magazine needs to stick to doing what the Newspaper of Record ™ is good at: peddling lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction, for instance.

    Where’s Judith Miller when you need her?

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 10:00 am ¶

25. Megan wrote:

    @inkst,

    “For anyone asking for the truth to be told, the truth that needs to be examined are not only the conditions that people live in, but some of the historical and actual roots of the conditions. Looking at these roots draws connections to our behavior, to our choices as consumers, to the increasing interconnectedness of our global society, rather than evoking, “oh those poor little African children.Makes me think of the old “$1 a day” charity drives on TV with the small children with distended bellies and flies on their eyes.”

    I agree that it is important for students to be told the truth about the effects of colonialism on Africa as a continent, and the effects of American consumer choices on people who live “all the way over there”. HOWEVER, I’m really not sure how to convey that in a single picture. Furthermore, while students who have privilege by simply having been born in the U.S. debate the colonial impact of the Europeans in Modern Day Africa, little boys with purple dinosaurs on their t-shirts are being ripped from their families, forced to rape women and fight wars they can’t comprehend on a daily basis. While we sit over HERE discussing the roots of colonialism and its ill effects on the African people and Western stereotypes of brown people, those “stereotypes” are living with AIDS and dying from malaria, and diarrhea and starving. With no one there to wipe the flies off THEIR faces b/c we’re too caught up in scholarly arguments to actually take action.

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 10:02 am ¶

26. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    I agree that it is important for students to be told the truth about the effects of colonialism on Africa as a continent, and the effects of American consumer choices on people who live “all the way over there”. HOWEVER, I’m really not sure how to convey that in a single picture.

    It’s not about one single picture. It’s about how lots of these single images reinforce a dominant narrative about a continent, and how when images are presented they always seem to focus on one aspect of what is happening. And since other images of life are rarely presented (like kids in schools) it reinforces the stereotypes and ideas.

    While we sit over HERE discussing the roots of colonialism and its ill effects on the African people and Western stereotypes of brown people, those “stereotypes” are living with AIDS and dying from malaria, and diarrhea and starving. With no one there to wipe the flies off THEIR faces b/c we’re too caught up in scholarly arguments to actually take action.

    You pose this statement as if these two things – discussion and action – are unrelated. Let me ask you this – why are there so many people with AIDS? Or dying from diseases like malaria that we have vaccines for? Why do kids have flies on their faces? What is preventing them from purchasing things like mosquito nets when the average life saving, treated net is under $10? Why are certain nations at war and enlisting child soldiers? Why don’t these wars ever seem to end?

    It is through discussion that you find the answers to these questions. And it is also through discussion that you find the answers you nay think are correct (thanks to your understanding of the dominant narrative) are actually quite far off the mark.

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 10:35 am ¶

27. inkst wrote:

    Thanks Latoya!!

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 10:53 am ¶

28. madelinekelsey wrote:

    I’ve been reading Racialicious for a while but have never commented…I was reading the news last night and came across a link to a NYtimes article about a highly militarized program for youth in the US that was interesting to read in light of the discussion here on the “Armed and Underage” cover.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/14/us/14explorers.html

    Moderator(s), this is my first attempt at posting so if you think this is way off topic, please feel free to ignore it. The article may not be terribly relevant, other than showing a very different way of depicting children with guns (determined, I would argue, but the relative privilege of the two groups in question).

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 11:37 am ¶

29. Erica wrote:

    @Arabi — “Not everyone goes to the local grocery or cooks their food.” — The boy’s family does get the majority of their food from a grocery store, and cooks much of it (including fish) as well.

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 12:39 pm ¶

30. madelinekelsey wrote:

    oops…determined “by” privilege, I meant to say, not “determined but the relative privilege.” Making sense is good…sorry.

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 1:22 pm ¶

31. inkst wrote:

    Thanks for the link madelinekelsey. I am speechless about that program, and it was a very interesting parallel to the coverage of child soldiers. Really, the line between the two things is thin at best.

    I can’t believe that shit is allowed. Wait, yes I can, but still. Wow.

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 3:40 pm ¶

32. Melissa wrote:

    What an odd choice for the front cover. I’m not disgusted by it, I eat sushi and am well aware of where it comes from and what it looks like before it is cut up, but many people in the US would think it gross. I do recommend the book Hungry Planet for more pictures and information like the article and a very respectful treatment of the subjects. It shows everyone from those living in refugee camps to affluent families in industrialized nations. It is a beautiful book, as all of Peter Menzel and Faith D’Aluisio’s books are. How strange they waited so long after the book was published to do a story like this. It makes me ask, “why now?”

    The book didn’t give me an “us vs. them” feel. It talked about each families day and preparing meals and you got to see how similar aspects of life are all around the world, no matter what the actual food they were making was. It would be better to present the book in its entirety rather than this article.

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 4:02 pm ¶

33. madelinekelsey wrote:

    @inkst, yeah, i’m pretty speechless about the program myself (or i was for quite a while upon reading the article anyway). i didn’t really want to sidetrack the thread into discussion of it, but maybe at some later time…

    And another vote for the actual Hungry Planet book…really interesting!

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 4:24 pm ¶

34. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    @madelinekelsey & Inkst –

    I can write one, but an unscrupulous coworker made off with my copy, so I no longer have it at hand to reference. Any volunteers with a scanner?

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 4:26 pm ¶

35. NancyP wrote:

    Let’s say that you are an activist who wants to end the use of child soldiers, and who also wants to avoid the perception that a large region containing areas where child soldiers are employed is ipso facto all bad news on all topics all of the time. How do you use the media to forward the effort to stop children from being used as soldiers?

    Exactly how would you photograph a lead photo for a story about child soldiers?

    How was the subject recruited for the picture? What would be the ethical issues involved?

    Was the photo subject allowed to choose how he wanted to appear in the photo?

    Would the photo be less problematic if the child had decided what to wear, what expression to show, whether or not to have military gear in the photo, whether to be photoed in a static pose or while performing a chosen activity, and what general setting to use?

    Would you rather have more people read a thoughtful article with the cover photo present, or fewer people read the same article without photographic illustration (for instance, having a cover with some sort of graphic 1. showing worldwide distribution of child soldiers (under 16 or whatever age the UNESCO considers a violation of children’s rights) and percentage of total soldiers in the same locales. or 2. short quote from child soldier, superimposed on or paired with image of that soldier’s “kit” but not showing the actual child soldier. or……) In other words, does the damage of a “hook” image ingested by the proportion of viewers who don’t go on to read the article outweigh the raised awareness of the additional readers of the article who were alerted to the article by the image.

    Do you even want the general public to be aware of the issue, or would it be more productive overall to leave the issue to specialists who wish to encourage policies that reduce the severity of the problem?

    I think that it is a given that few people read an imageless feature article on an unfamiliar topic not directly affecting the daily life of the reader and not of prior interest. The newsmedia-consuming general public is far more dependent on images than the public of 20 or 50 or 100 years ago.

    Posted 15 May 2009 at 11:50 pm ¶

36. madelinekelsey wrote:

    @Latoya Peterson…I’d love to see that post but no scanner, sorry.

    @NancyP I totally agree that “the newsmedia-consuming general public is far more dependent on images than the public of 20 or 50 or 100 years ago”….that’s why I think it’s important to have these kinds of conversations about images, to try to be more “image literate” to use a buzzword that’s been going around in my work. I work primarily with undergrads and while a lot of them haven’t had as much practice critically analyzing text sources of information as I wish, they at least seem to get more of that than discussions about how images are used and what they mean. I know some K-12 teachers who would do a great job with these covers, analyzing what’s unsaid and assumed in these images.

    Posted 16 May 2009 at 6:02 pm ¶

37. Anonymous wrote:

    LaToya, My point is simply that conversation should be linked with action and that there is nothing wrong with highlighting issues that are NOT simply stereotypes, but extremely prevalent. Discussion along WITH action makes a difference. If I’m starving, please believe that I don’t want two people who have the capacity to get me some some food take two hours to discuss the root causes of why I’m hungry. Discussion w/o action can only go so far b/c while people discuss, people are dying. Historical perspective is important (as I stressed earlier) however it has a lot more meaning in a scholarly setting. I’m quite sure you disagree, but scholarly deliberation has a time and a place. When it comes to teenagers, lets be practical. And practical comes in the form of a child soldier as a cover to facilitate discussion between students and teachers b/c it evokes an emotional response. THAT is where your scholarly debates and my action both come into play and work together. If it takes a little black baby with a distended belly and flies to get an American to reach into their pocket to give $20 bucks a month is that not worth it? Even if no debate takes place about how colonialism and colonization may be the root cause of why the child is living in those conditions in the first place?

    And on another note. Seriously, let’s say journalists assigned to cover Africa’s humanitarian issues get a phone call from the publishers who have decided to forgo the stereotypical images of Africa and they ignore the squalor in front of them and seek out happier images. Instead of highlighting the plight of Rwandan refugees who settled in Kenya after the genocide, or focusing on the HIV/AIDS crisis and the 18 million orphaned children it creates, lets say the writers decided to write articles on ligher subjects. 2009 summer fashion trends in Nairobi anyone? That is a JOKE and insulting to the thousands of people living in Nairobi slums living with AIDS.

    Posted 17 May 2009 at 11:07 am ¶

38. method wrote:

    Well, Anonymous, not quite. It would be interesting to read about the “normal” activities in Nairobi, a city that has skyscrapers as well as huge chaotic shanty-towns. One of the complaints you will hear about international debt relief is that the countries in Africa that have worked to keep up their payments and maintain development feel they are neglected in favor of countries that are basket-cases.

    This was a nice presentation on HIV in Africa that contained the message, there is no one “African situation”: http://ted.org/index.php/talks/hans_rosling_the_truth_about_hiv.html

    On the other hand, there has to be a way to talk about child soldiers.

    Posted 18 May 2009 at 10:23 am ¶

39. Lisa G wrote:

    After looking at the responses to the blog; I realized that I might either a. be on another level or b. am quite immature. So, because I value myself more, probably that you ever will I am going to say it was a.

    Now, after viewing the ‘What they Eat’ photo, I have to admit that the title was the last thing from my mind. It was actually the way the kid looked. Maybe I’m shallow, but I honestly believe they caught this child at a very bad moment. He has a runny/congested nose, which doesn’t make him seem like some well to do kid from Japan or China. He looks like a street urchin getting his first meal of the day.

    Now, taking the image I received plus the title of the head article; I’m not thinking about how various cultures eat; I’m thinking about poor homeless kids in third world countries eat and I pity them. This image has nothing to do with the book Hungry Planet.

    The title ‘What They Eat’, does create a barrier stating that we are different from those people in other cultures. It also makes an assumption that all of us eat the same; which we already know not to be true; because some of us come from those same cultures listed in Hungry Planet.

    The picture of the child soldier, didn’t make me think “Oh, poor African children’, it made me think “They couldn’t find another culture that has child soldiers.” The image actually infuriated me, because of the perception of black people- in general- being poor and violent. I wish they would’ve had child soldiers from Bosnia and Herzegovina or some European country, so people can know child soldiers exist outside of the African continent.

    Enough of my ranting…. there are many ways to view images…. and it seems that many people that are reading this blog are desensitized to these images. It seemed that no one really questioned why these images; because we’re not questioning; it seems okay to exploit another culture and not really care if it’s a false representation or not.

    The sad thing its nothing new… it happens here all the time. At least those here can speak up for themselves. Unlike, these kids who are in other places.

    Posted 18 May 2009 at 8:08 pm ¶

40. 9jah wrote:

    Anonymous/Megan:

    here’s one perspective. I am a true, live African. So you can say i once was one of the people “over there.” Now, I assure you that if you gave a child a choice about whether to wave the flies and wipe the dirt off his face prior to taking a picture parading him for a couple pennies the globe over, said child would opt to be cleaned up. Even individuals in the most desperate circumstances place a premium on self-regard. Fact is that we are moved to act on issues in Europe etc. despite the fact the associated images tend to be significantly less jarring.

    You say: “If it takes a little black baby with a distended belly and flies to get an American to reach into their pocket to give $20 bucks a month is that not worth it?”

    But I don’t even think this is the right question. certainly it is worth it if that were our only option but it is not necesary. As mentioned above, granting a victim dignity while affording them help need not be mutually exclusive aims. You should also note it is not a harmless exercise, the negative externality that results is one that black Africans labor under mightily: the perception of complete and total suffering, and ultimately, backwardness. So in real life, it may mean no one listens to you or gives full due because there is no possible way fly boy/girl is getting appointed CEO, Pope (whatever), it means no tourism and no investments and therefore loss of potential tourism revenue.

    In fact, fly boy/girl is not even credited with the ability to assess and form opinions on THEIR own problems (let me know the next time you see the MSM covering a problem in an Africna country quote a native expert. (yes, they actually exist!) Rarely happens. The space is completely occupied by liberal whites who feel completely comfortable showing kids with flies on their faces. Basically, the disemination of these images means black africans experiencing essentially every bad consequence of stereotypes.

    As far as whether telling more positive stories is an insult to victims, I would say notwithstanding our problems in the West (violence, racism, sexism, poverty, addiction, environmental), the media shows the ball drop every year, show fireworks in every continent…that is except Africa (guess what? They actually have firworks displays too!), interview every stupid reality TV contest alive, promote a billion award shows etc. Now, situations are different but I think the principle still holds.

    As with here in the US, there can be balance with imagery. And believe it or not, life as we know it (work, dinner, sports, shows, culture, partying) is A norm in black africa even if not THE norm across the entire population. This experience cannot just be discounted.

    Here’s another thought: I suspect that the imagery of Africa in the western media is so undignified, that many feel the subjects are just not worth the time or are beyond help. With an objective approach that shows more dimensions of black Africa, Africans will resonate as one of “us” and may benefit more.

    The fact of the matter is, sensationalism sells. This is not lost on liberal advocates and in their zeal to help, they are perpetuating other harms.

    Posted 19 May 2009 at 2:14 pm ¶