For those of you who no longer get it or haven't seen it in a while, it's changed: changed its covers completely; changed its format into a far more graphic geographic; and changed its approach from its emphasis on national. Its very intentional metamorphosis sounds the alarm like few other publications can: We are in trouble. All of us. Everywhere.
It looked pretty bland fifty years ago. It merely printed its contents on the cover, including page numbers. Then you looked inside and found topless women in places like New Guinea, where someone had spent the better part of x-years finding peoples who had never seen a camera and had no reason not to pose for it, so they did.
So the dirty Ernies of the world could sneak a look inside and check out large, small and sagging breasts on women of color. The men barely covered themselves, too. I always wondered that, if they had ever discovered and had access to the cheap lusting of adolescent white boys, might they probably take particular exception with those spears of theirs.
Then, having been to nearly every single undiscovered place above ground, the magazine started discussing the planet itself both above and beneath it. It also discussed economic and cultural development in places we already knew about, or thought we knew, in a kind of every-decade-checkup fashion. The writing was lively and positive. It sometimes hid deeper issues by mentioning them only in passage, letting someone else handle that part.
Its feel-good philosophy has done a 180. Its staffers have been sent out into this deteriorating world with, it seems, one overriding purpose now: To tell everybody what a mess we're now in. The photography is now even better and far more powerful in its story-telling capabilities.
Here are some samplings of this month's issue, focusing on migration and its effects:
- On the Cover: What looks to be a mother with an infant son, wading as she carries him. The main story is entitled A World On The Move: Seas rise, crops wither, wars erupt. Humankind seeks shelter in another place. The two people are from Myanmar, Rohinga refugees. This woman and child made it to Bangladesh. With 20 feet to go, she was so eager for a safe place that she grabbed her child, jumped from the boat and waded the rest of the way.
- Page 17: We Are All Migrants: Through time and space, humans are a migratory species. You are either moving or staying for a while: It has never been otherwise.
- Page 40: Walking with Migrants: Paul Salopek has been walking with migrant peoples for seven years. He began in Ethiopia. (I remember a DC cabbie from Ethiopia. I asked him why he came here. He looked into the rear view mirror at me: "Freedom." End of discussion.)
- Page 49: Terrific graphic map showing where Salopek went and how many people left each country--all in the Middle East or South Asia, from Cyprus to India.
- Page 51: A moving photo of a crying 5-year-old from a Syrian Kurdish family, finally having made it to Turkey. He's crying tears of joy.
- Pages 54-57: A fold-open display of net migration out of, and into, the leading countries in both categories. Sobering thought: as of 2017, the yearly rate of influx into the U.S. was a steady four million-plus. That could either justify a 'big, beautiful wall," or render its purpose completely pointless. Your choice. (Or a Marshall Plan for Central America, like Julian Castro has been suggesting in his campaign? Anyone? Anyone?)
- Pages 61-67: Fold-open display of sixteen Rohinga newborns, none more than two months old, now in Bangladesh. Six hadn't been named yet. The clear message: This is the reason their parents take the risk.
- Page 74: Story on Africans fleeing to Spain.
- Page 86: Not to be outdone, a story on migrants in Tijuana, Mexico, up against the U.S. border, with plenty of family pictures.
Where are all these people going? Not to the plains of South Dakota or the Himalayas, not if they can help it. They're going to cities, where jobs are, where at least the potential of care is. Thus National Geographic ran a special issue on cities in April, getting out in front of a worldwide trend that has been underway for quite a while now. They are growing incredibly: Tokyo, Mexico City, Mumbai.
Fifty years ago, my residence of Milwaukee's population used to be in the U.S.'s top 15. It's been dwarfed since by many cities in Texas, Florida, and California. Get this: one of the largest Somali immigrant population centers is in Minneapolis. When I was with the NEA leadership during the last decade, I attended a statewide conference in Nebraska. There I learned that Somali immigrants were working in meatpacking plants in the southern part of that state. Did some of those in Nebraska move to the Twin Cities? I wonder.
The paradigm shift of National Geographic is clear: It's far more global with a conscience far more involved and concerned. Someone over in those offices gets it. Climate change, massive, unstoppable migration, and--we need to remember this, too--political instability and reactionary backlash are creating boiling points on the planet: Our planet, the only one we have.
It's a paradigm shift. It's a fierce decision to not only inform the world about itself, but to remind it about how much danger this little, floating speck of the universe is in. It's brave. It challenges its own market: We're finished playing around. Pay attention.
H. G. Wells once said that the world is in a race between education and catastrophe. National Geographic has chosen to commit itself to a sharply directed effort to bolster the first so we avoid the second. I salute it.
Be well. I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
The Grass Is Always Greener
ReplyDeleteSince early man discovered that what he wanted to eat also wanted to eat him, he decided it would be advantageous to switch to a plant-based diet. To do this he migrated to a more temperate climate and the agrarian society was born. Some men have never lost their wanderlust, however. But some men are born, educated, work all their lives and retire, all within a hundred miles. What do suppose accounts for the difference?
I have lived in in ten different homes in three different states in the past twenty years, and spent twelve months of that in a forty-two foot RV traveling the entire country. However the last eight years I have stayed put and happily so. That is with the exception of my travels, those eight years have taken me to eleven foreign countries and this fall will make it twelve. You can say I have one foot on the ground and one foot in the heavens.
My grandparents, like yours, left Poland and emigrated to this country to find a better life for their family. However my grandparents believed that one day they would return to a stable and unified Poland. They never made it but I made the trip for them. They made that migration for their children; it is what drives all parents. Wanting your children to have a better life than you did.
But migration is no longer a one-way street. Yes, there are millions of people from poor and unstable countries taking incredible risks, to find a better life in the EU and America. We have seen touching photos of dead children lying on the shore giving testimony to that fact. In contrast, there an estimated nine million, non-military Americans living outside the US (some officials think the number is much higher). When I was in Thailand I had the chance to visit an American compound. The homes were beautiful, with pools and lush landscaping. All at a fraction of what it would cost in the US.
But pretty soon there will be no Shangri-La, no more 'better places' to escape to. Humans are trashing our home at an incredible rate. We are depleting earth's resources of clean air and water. Climate change has made vast area of the globe inarable. In 2017, just before he died, Stephen Hawking set a deadline for humanity to save itself. He said in 100 years man will have had to colonize Mars or some other planet to save the species. But what if we don't? There is a time table of what would become of the earth after man is gone:
3 months the air is visibly cleaner
10-12 months the rain has washed most of the
pollutants into the soil
3-15 years roads have degraded and
vegetation is growing in their place
further cleaning the atmosphere
30 years man-made satellites will fall
from the sky causing fires. Roofs
will collapse and skyscrapers will
fall vegetation will take their place
60 years sea life will recover to pre-
fishing eras.
75 years most everything metal will be
oxidized.
120 years oceans and plants will have
scrubbed the earth of carbon dioxide
150 years winters are colder, the north is
covered in ice and snow, the south
returns to desert
200 years most of the dams are gone and the
rivers return to their natural state
230 years the Eiffel Tower and the Statue
of Liberty or gone
500 years no trace of man is left.
Yes, the earth will go on without us. Is this the better life we want for our children?
I think Hawking's projection was optimistic. We will go much faster than that once the threshold is made.
ReplyDeleteWell than party hardy because according to you there is no hope. We are years from even reaching Mars, and as far as science can tell it is no longer habitable. It does appear that it was at one time a blue planet, why it changed, that's anyone's guess. Maybe there is life under ground. It's the stuff dreams are made of. I won't be around to see any of it, so I'm not too worried.
ReplyDeleteI think Hawking's projection was optimistic. We will go much faster than that once the threshold is made.
ReplyDeleteNew Furnace Cost Calgary