Diversity

[dustydingo]

22 hours ago, Phil said:

 It's gotten to the point that many feel it's being thrust unwanted into our faces as a form of social engineering and normalization that does not represent reality.

 

Really? I do wonder just who the "many" in this case are . . .

 

DD

[dustydingo]

5 hours ago, JaniMarkus Hasa said:

A bit off topic: I have a hard time with ethnic profiling of individuals in my images. It just feels somewhat wrong. I wouldn't even want determinate anyone's gender on their behalf. Yet I understand the demand and I do it to some level. But even the word Caucasian is from times when other options were Negroid, Mongoloid or Australoid. Aryan, anyone?

 

Totally agree. When I was regularly submitting to that place that has just gone all RF and pissed-off 80% of their contributors, I used to leave unfilled the optional "race" section of their model releases . . . especially "mixed race" . . . I don't even know what that really means, if anything.

 

DD

[dustydingo]

52 minutes ago, spacecadet said:

One must give the benefit of the doubt I suppose- your meaning is crystal clear but the subtlety might be lost on some.

 

after carefully reading all the posts in this thread, I truly _don't_ think the red arrow was a misunderstanding unfortunately.

_

DD

[Michael Ventura]

I try to get diversity in my photos whenever possible, I do see that it can help with sales.  

 

This one I shot of my across the road neighbor, he is of Hispanic origin and was happy to pose, at my house, for this photo at the time of an election.  It has sold a few times.

 

 

This one (or a similar) has also sold...shot at a local university (I did have access for a magazine...so that helps)

 

 

A diverse surgical team in an operating room.  

 

Edited February 15, 2020 by Michael Ventura

[Betty LaRue]

I think the point somehow might be lost. When a buyer wants an image consisting of people of different races, hopefully those images are used to further race relations. So to me, I really don’t see the wrong in labeling.

Yes, all races are people. But anyone thinking there isn’t prejudice in the world has their head stuck firmly in the sand. Images of different races playing, working, living together seems a wonderful thing to me.

In this context, what’s wrong with labeling so these images can be found? Or should we not label, but only use the tag diversity?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I doubt it will change my thinking.

Betty

[Marianne]

2 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Anyone else find the red arrow on this post a bit sinister?

 

Disturbing, hope it was a misunderstanding but from what I've seen on other forums, sadly perhaps not.

 

...the sad part is that there are many people who see "diversity" as fake when it may not be their reality, but for a growing majority it is reality ...there are plenty of customers who will purchase images showing happy people all of the same race, so why resent those who are looking for something different? 

 

and with regard to Fox's comment, I wonder what he'd make of the Broadway show "Hamilton?"  

[Michael Ventura]

I happen to live in one of the most diverse areas of the U.S. (Silver Spring, Maryland - just north of Washington DC) and I love it! Aside from having restaurants representing cuisine from all over the world, I love kaleidoscope of cultures.  My immediate neighbors could be representatives at the United Nations..I am as much of a minority, in this community as they are.  I am Caucasian but come from an immigrant father (born and raised in Egypt).  In the U.S., nearly everyone you meet comes from another land originally.   So yes, even though the whites are the majority here, the other ethnic groups make up an important part of this human fabric.  Good to have minorities reflect that in photos.

[John Mitchell]

I'm all for "diversity" in images and everywhere else. However, I think that it's time we stopped thinking in terms of "race" altogether. It's an outmoded concept that needs to be scrapped. There is really no scientific basis for dividing humans into different races. If we no longer have "races", then we won't have racism. Also, power-hungry politicians and nutballs won't be able to weaponize race to serve their own ends.

Edited February 15, 2020 by John Mitchell

[John Morrison]

32 minutes ago, John Mitchell said:

I'm all for "diversity" in images and everywhere else. However, I think that it's time we stopped thinking in terms of "race" altogether. It's an outmoded concept that needs to be scrapped. There is really no scientific basis for dividing humans into different races. If we no longer have "races", then we won't have racism. Also, power-hungry politicians and nutballs won't be able to weaponize race to serve their own ends.

 

Yes, the differences between one group and another are mostly just social constructs, born out of fear of the ‘other’, the alien, the foreigner. Racial epithets, too, have little or no objective value; the categories come from pseudo-scientific attempts, since the Enlightenment, to create a rationale for empire-building and an excuse for the ill-treatment of particular groups (when, in reality, the categories refer to little more than skin colour). It is not wishful thinking to point out that homo sapiens really is one species (because we can all interbreed)… we just come in a variety of colours.

 

Because of the nature of his work (conflict resolution, disaster management, etc), dinner with my son is likely to be an international affair. Last week I shared a meal with people from Iran, Nepal and Nicaragua: three countries currently facing big problems. It was fascinating for me to shut up and listen (for a change), and to be reminded that what motivates us in UK is likely to be what motivates people from very different cultures. Conversation is what we need. As Winston Churchill said… “Jaw jaw is better than war war”…

[Marianne]

As kids in the 60s many of us expected that by the time we grew up the world would be colorblind. We are not there yet. Progress takes longer than we expect. I look forward to the day when our world is colorblind. Do our images help to move that goal forward? I'm sure we all hope that they do. Just like we hope our images of sustainability, climate change, etc. move us toward policies that save this fragile globe on which we all live together.

 

Do we hope those images sell? I believe we do. Does that make us cynics or can we earn from our efforts and still be agents for change? 

Edited February 15, 2020 by Marianne

[Futterwithtrees]

4 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Have you missed the point? He ground an axe over what he claimed was the incorrect PC inclusion of a Sikh in a WW1 scene. Many thousands of Sikhs served in WW1. He was wrong.

No I don't think I have missed the point but I did asked what do you think. I think you would benefit from reading more of the interview and context. It was not that he was unaware but that he rather considered the inclusion a distracting irrelevance.. 

 

Speaking to Breitbart London’s executive editor James Delingpole on his podcast The Delingpod, the 41-year-old said: ‘It’s very heightened awareness of the colour of someone’s skin because of the oddness in the casting. Even in 1917 they’ve done it with a Sikh soldier.

 

‘Which is great, it’s brilliant, but you’re suddenly aware there were Sikhs fighting in this war. And you’re like “ok”. You’re now diverting me away from what the story is.’ Delingpole then discussed ‘shoehorning’ different ethnicities into other films, with Laurence saying: ‘It is kind of racist – if you talk about institutional racism, which is what everyone loves to go on about, which I’m not a believer in, there is something institutionally racist about forcing diversity on people in that way. You don’t want to think about [that].’ Later, Laurence praised the war film, saying it was ‘so good’ – with Delingpole quipping: ‘Apart from the gratuitous Sikh.’ The Lewis actor said: ‘He’s great in it as well, it didn’t bother me, but it did sort of flick me out of what is essentially a one-shot film… it’s just incongruous with the story.’ However, over on The Brendan O’Neill Show on Spiked, he praised Sam Mendes’ movie, saying: ‘There’s a reason why a film like 1917 is getting watched by everybody, and that’s because it’s a great story. ‘1917 definitely felt for me… I saw a woman with a baby saying “I don’t know what to do”. It’s a great scene and it’s amazing. And at no point did I think “why isn’t there a man holding the baby and saying I’m raising this child alone”.’ Although he did slam films like the Charlie’s Angels reboot and Little Women while doing it.

 

He did however subsequently offer the mandatory insincere apology for any insensitivity he may have displayed. 

 

 

[Cryptoprocta]

What I'm just not understanding is why people in a diverse area wouldn't be shooting diversity? If I'm here, I shoot who is here, if I'm in Birmingham, I shoot who's in Birmingham (a very diverse city). You'd have to make a real effort to do otherwise in either situation. (I don't shoot 'models')

[John Mitchell]

4 hours ago, John Morrison said:

 

Yes, the differences between one group and another are mostly just social constructs, born out of fear of the ‘other’, the alien, the foreigner. Racial epithets, too, have little or no objective value; the categories come from pseudo-scientific attempts, since the Enlightenment, to create a rationale for empire-building and an excuse for the ill-treatment of particular groups (when, in reality, the categories refer to little more than skin colour). It is not wishful thinking to point out that homo sapiens really is one species (because we can all interbreed)… we just come in a variety of colours.

 

Because of the nature of his work (conflict resolution, disaster management, etc), dinner with my son is likely to be an international affair. Last week I shared a meal with people from Iran, Nepal and Nicaragua: three countries currently facing big problems. It was fascinating for me to shut up and listen (for a change), and to be reminded that what motivates us in UK is likely to be what motivates people from very different cultures. Conversation is what we need. As Winston Churchill said… “Jaw jaw is better than war war”…

 

Ironically, the term "diversity" -- as well-intentioned as it is -- can actually reinforce the myth of there being different races of humans. It's one of the pitfalls of language, I guess...

[Betty LaRue]

I grew up in a small town in Oklahoma, maybe 9,000 people. Less, now. There was one Mexican family, one native Indian family. They were just people, nice people, to me.  I didn’t know until I was an adult and living away, that my small town was known for letting any black people who wandered through know that they had to be gone by sundown. I’m deeply ashamed of this. It’s not like that now.

One of the air bases my husband was stationed at in deepTexas, we had a garage apartment and a new baby. I was 17. My husband’s best friend on the base was black and we invited him to dinner. Though I had to scrape every penny, I fixed what Mom fixed for Sunday dinner when I was growing up. Fried chicken, mashed potatoes and gravy, corn and homemade biscuits. (Not UK biscuits!) And a pie.

We had a great time. When he left, he thanked us profusely, then said, “Don’t ask me back, I won’t come. If I did, you’d pay.”

Neither of us understood.  He left us scratching our heads.

The next morning, our landlady let us know in no uncertain terms we couldn’t have blacks in our home. She saw everyone who came and went.
Even though we both grew up in that bigoted small town, prejudice was never talked about, I never heard it from my parents, so we just knew people as people when we left. I have no idea who it was that shut the town down at sundown. Mayor? Police? The odd thing was after we left town, we then saw constant prejudice wherever we went (Indiana, Texas and California)and was left astounded.

 

I guess that’s where I’m coming from in my previous remark about diversity in images. I thought those pictures would show us as only people who intermingle,  live, love and bleed like each other, and have different colored skin. Those pictures make me feel good because they reflect my values. But maybe not everyone feels that way. Maybe if I were a different color, those images would make me feel like I was being patronized.
These days it seems to be damned if you do, damned if you don’t. People are afraid to open their mouths about anything for fear of being told how wrong they are. How dare someone to think differently from someone else?  Makes me feel like jumping in a hole and pulling it over me. Pretty soon we’ll all be robots.

Betty

[geogphotos]

Please please please can we not have James Delingpole, Breitbart, and similar rightwing loons discussed on this forum.

 

Can we please please please stick to stock photography or general discussions of topics based on personal experience?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2020 by geogphotos

[John Morrison]

One problem with stock as a campaigning tool (for diversity, equality, or any other 'social good') is that we have little control over how or where our images are used. Our pix may be used in a context which supports our own positions, or undermines them… and there ain’t much we can do about it…

[Betty LaRue]

4 hours ago, John Morrison said:

One problem with stock as a campaigning tool (for diversity, equality, or any other 'social good') is that we have little control over how or where our images are used. Our pix may be used in a context which supports our own positions, or undermines them… and there ain’t much we can do about it…

So true, John. I forgot about that. Because we think an image says what we wants it to say doesn’t mean a buyer won’t use it to say what they want it to say. Good point.

[Michael Ventura]

I think more and more buyers are looking for diversity in images and if they don’t find it here then they will find it somewhere else or have it shot, if they have the budget.  It is our job to stock the “shelves” with images that buyers are hoping to find. I don’t photograph minorities because I am trying to be some sort of social justice warrior, I do it because there is a need for it.  And I happen to be glad that there is a need for it.

[Futterwithtrees]

7 hours ago, geogphotos said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 hours ago, geogphotos said:

Please please please can we not have James Delingpole, Breitbart, and similar rightwing loons discussed on this forum.

Can we please please please stick to stock photography or general discussions of topics based on personal experience?

 

Please Please Please be grateful that there is enough Diversity on this forum to allow the inclusion of all relevant points of view without any of us being compelled to get involved. Surely a basic principle of Diversity or Liberty is The right or freedom to be part of the militant left or the looney right (within the bounds of law) without being pressured to be what someone else wants me to be. Some might want simply to be middle of the road and take pics without feeling pressured to include this subject or to avoid that subject. 

My modest portfolio includes pics of Jews and Muslims, Catholics and Protestants (A touchy subject here in Northern Ireland) Black Skinned and White men and women, Privileged and Under Privileged. I took them because the opportunity presented itself when I had my camera with me. I have no agenda although I do have standards. There are some some subjects that I will not give the air of publicity to and I am sure all will agree that is my right.

Colonel Saito say "Be happy at your work" for those that may not know he was the Japanese Colonel in the movie The Bridge on the River Kwai. Now how diverse is that???

[Michael Ventura]

I agree with Futterwithtrees that no one should feel compelled to shoot anything other than what they want.  We all have our reasons to be here and why we shoot stock.  There is a demand for polar bear photos but I don’t shoot wildlife much and they are not real accessible to me.  Others fill that need, such as Paulette (NYCat).  So yes, shoot what is best for you to shoot and hopefully  the sales will follow.

[spacecadet]

29 minutes ago, Futterwithtrees said:

There are some some subjects that I will not give the air of publicity to

Not including the climate-change denier James Delingpole and the far-right "news service" Breitbart, apparently.

I had been inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you were unaware of their agenda, but since you defended your post, on the grounds of "Diversity and Liberty" I'm not so sure.

Free speech does not extend to the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

Edited February 16, 2020 by spacecadet

[Futterwithtrees]

5 hours ago, spacecadet said:

Not including the climate-change denier James Delingpole and the far-right "news service" Breitbart, apparently.

I had been inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and accept that you were unaware of their agenda, but since you defended your post, on the grounds of "Diversity and Liberty" I'm not so sure.

Free speech does not extend to the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

You evidently have a penchant for giving the benefit of the doubt judging by your earlier response to Harry Harrington. I know nothing about James Delingpole as the main thrust of my earlier contribution was to quote Laurence Fox. not him. i am not inclined to label any man because I believe in Diversity.  Nevertheless I am not too worried about climate change deniers as they will stand or fall on the merits of their arguments.. There are matters of a much more fundamental nature that concern me one of which is an observation that a real characteristic of the militant Diversity Lobby is to allow diversity and freedom of speech only as long as that diversity and freedom of speech conforms with what I believe and say.

 

Regarding the "Free speech does not extend to the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre." statement... It's a nice quote but what's it's relevance.

Edited February 16, 2020 by Futterwithtrees
Ommission

[Betty LaRue]

9 hours ago, Futterwithtrees said:

 

Please Please Please be grateful that there is enough Diversity on this forum to allow the inclusion of all relevant points of view without any of us being compelled to get involved. Surely a basic principle of Diversity or Liberty is The right or freedom to be part of the militant left or the looney right (within the bounds of law) without being pressured to be what someone else wants me to be. Some might want simply to be middle of the road and take pics without feeling pressured to include this subject or to avoid that subject. 

My modest portfolio includes pics of Jews and Muslims, Catholics and Protestants (A touchy subject here in Northern Ireland) Black Skinned and White men and women, Privileged and Under Privileged. I took them because the opportunity presented itself when I had my camera with me. I have no agenda although I do have standards. There are some some subjects that I will not give the air of publicity to and I am sure all will agree that is my right.

Colonel Saito say "Be happy at your work" for those that may not know he was the Japanese Colonel in the movie The Bridge on the River Kwai. Now how diverse is that???

Reminds me of some pictures I took. All I had to do is step out my front door and photograph what I saw across the street. A bunch of 12-15 year old boys playing pickup basketball in a driveway and street. Tags, boys playing basketball, youth, teens, juveniles, street basketball, pickup basketball, companionship, sport, fun, competition, etc.

It was only later, developing them, I noticed mixed races. Diversity was the farthest thing from my mind at the time.

[geogphotos]

13 hours ago, Futterwithtrees said:

You evidently have a penchant for giving the benefit of the doubt judging by your earlier response to Harry Harrington. I know nothing about James Delingpole as the main thrust of my earlier contribution was to quote Laurence Fox. not him.

 

 

 

 

Delingpole has described himself "as a member of probably the most discriminated-against subsection in the whole of British society—the white, middle-aged, public-school-and-Oxbridge educated middle-class male."

 

Bless.

 

No wonder he feels upset to see an Indian in a first world war film. 

Edited February 17, 2020 by geogphotos

[dustydingo]

(note the use of quotation marks in all multi-word searches herein)

 

"yeti" . . . Alamy  search results: 4,000

"unicorns" . . . Alamy search results: 3,590

"Bermuda triangle" . . .  Alamy Search results: 896

" militant Diversity Lobby" . . . . . . Alamy Search results: Zero

 

Just sayin'

 

DD