In the latest issue of National Geographic, the magazine has apologized for being racist. In the realm of explorers and one of the oldest magazines in the world, The National Geographic was always focused on science and discovery. What would make it racist? I remember when I was young we sometimes called the magazine National Pornography because it often depicted indigenous natives as bare breasted women, guaranteeing that men, at least, would buy the magazine for the prurient sexist purpose of viewing women naked from the waist up. One of the concerns of the women's movement, and rightly so.

When Rupert Murdoch and Fox News bought the magazine in 2015, I thought that the magazine would lose its scientific and natural world fact revealing mission for a more conservative viewpoint and that Alexander Graham Bell would roll over in his grave. And, that did happen, in a way, when the award-winning magazine staff was fired and one of the first issues was entitled, Spirituality. However, I found that issue to be fact-based and well-balanced.

I have viewed every National Geographic issue since and read every article. I am pleased to say that the magazine still is reporting on the front line of global warming and climate change, the coming crisis in food and water in the face of growing population, global migration, species extinction and other pertinent issues recorded by scientists, explorers and adventurers in ever more precise and thorough ways. Better tools and better results. I would encourage anyone wishing to keep up with the state of the world to read the magazine.

In National Geographic's racist apology were included its early treatment of indigenous groups and people of color as being "savages" or "uncivilized." In many ways perpetuating the superiority of Western white men over women and other peoples from all over the world. These people provided colorful pictures for the magazine to print and also served to help explorers go to places they could not go without hiring local native people to guide and carry their equipment for exploration. These under classes and racial groups, along with women, all provided necessary supporting roles in the background, unsung, for the most part.

Although the ascent of man through evolution is still debated since Charles Darwin's first theory was published, there can be little doubt that men were not created in a single stroke by some god circa 6000 years ago. DNA has enabled scientists to trace our origins back to primitive DNA some 3 billion years ago. The chimpanzee has 98% of the DNA of a modern human. All animals and plants have some percent that matches our DNA. We can be said to be part of the long history of life's development on earth. I first addressed the question of life's origin in an eighth-grade essay where I wondered what sparked the first life form and created DNA (although I didn't know of the term at the time). Deoxyribonucleic Acid had yet to become known as the carrier of life's signature and reproduction. Most people consider some form of god as our creator. Some greater force that created that life form and the rules for its growth, reproduction and diversification. Leading to the billions of lifeforms currently on the Earth. The only place we know of with life in our limited knowledge universe.

Not willing to debate the totally unknown, I'm more likely to believe scientists who say that life formed spontaneously from inorganic to organic materials created out of a universe that is rapidly revealing its secrets as we peer further and further into its origins by use of space--based telescopes and tools for measuring and verifying theories using the scientific method for proof. Suffice to say, we are a very rare and very lucky, life form that has conscious being able to question and reveal our own origins. The old unprovable myths have little value in our current world except to limit human progress by false promise, fear and intimidation.

Which brings me back to race. DNA has shown us that Homo sapiens in the form of Cro-Magnon came out of Africa some 15,000--30,000 years ago. Except for some mixing from the Neanderthal in northern Europe and the Denisovan in Asia, all living humans have essentially the same DNA. Skin color and other characteristics are generally minute changes in the genetic code that favored reproductive survival in isolated populations living in stable environmental conditions for a very long time. The result of light skin and blue eyes in northern Europeans may have only formed in as little as 15,000 years ago through survival of the fittest in a very primitive lifestyle that modern humans can't imagine living.

I have been watching Naked and Afraid where individuals supposedly with "survival" skills are placed in wilderness areas for 21 days with only a map and two or three modern tools like a machete, firestarter, pan for holding water, net, or duct tape. If clean water is not found and consumed within three days, the participants come in danger of dying of thirst and dehydration. If they do not have food, they risk death from starvation in the 21 days allotted. Without adequate shelter, they suffer from exposure to cold and heat, as well as debilitating insect bites.

Of those that have taken the reality show trial, even the most robust and skilled find the task daunting and often give up before the 21 days without their civilized tools and comforts. Those that do last, often come out malnourished, diseased and close to starvation. Only a handful showed any sign of possibly sustaining themselves for a longer period in the wilderness. What the TV reality show teaches us, is that indigenous people must be very intelligent to live out their whole lives in primitive wilderness conditions without modern tools. When modern tools are available to most indigenous people, they invariably choose those tools over their traditional ones. For example, Inuit people use motorboats and guns rather than paddle skin covered kayaks and use spears for hunting and fishing.

As the fable of Cain and Abel show, people will disagree and fight even within the family. But scientifically, to judge someone just by the color of their skin, has no bearing on their intelligence, behavior or many other traits that the human race has as a result of our immense genealogical diversity. Time to get over those hatreds and move on to a better place for all of us to live and let live.

Copyright 2018 © Ronald W. Hull

4/11/18