Prejudice comes in many forms and directions
By Dan Lieberman

It's difficult to believe the National Geographic could, even carelessly, contribute to prejudice and misunderstanding. Its excellent exhibit at the National Geographic explorers Hall: Zakouma, Elephant Crisis in Chad, seems to do that.

In the Geographic description of the exhibit,

Photographer Michael Nichols and conservationist J. Michael Fay provide an eyewitness report from Zakouma, a refuge in Chad that is home to some of the last surviving central African elephants. Armed patrols protect the elephants within the park, but poachers in search of ivory are slaughtering the endangered creatures as they search for food beyond the park boundaries. Learn about the efforts to protect elephants and other natural creatures and resources at the center of this human-wildlife conflict.

The exhibit is only about protection of wildlife. Nevertheless, inserted comments seem to harm human life.

(1) The reporter talks to the villagers in the only remaining village in the Zakouma preserve. "I asked them if the park was good or bad. They said 'it is good, there are no Arabs.'"

Why is this question asked and why is the comment inserted in the exhibit? It has nothing to do with animal protection. If the response was "it is good there are no blacks" "or "no Jews," would these words have been included in the exhibit? It is also doubtful these villagers ever wandered far and even met an Arab.

(2) Another unnecessary comment in another photo: "The situation in Chad is eerily reminiscent of the Central Republic during the 1980's when conservationists were in an all-out war against hundreds of armed men from Sudan rampaging on horses and camels, the kind of men known as Janjaweed."

What is the purpose of this comment in an animal protection exhibit? Don't the use of emotional propaganda words; "eerily reminiscent," "armed men from Sudan," and "kind of men known as Janjaweed," generate hatred of the Sudanese? Besides, the people known as Janjaweed live in North Darfur, which is too far for them to travel to the African Central Republic. The comment is only conjecture and is out of place.

(3) Another unnecessary comment in another photo: "Jacob's people, nomadic Arabs, are proud and don't mix with Africans."

This comment can be interpreted to mean the nomadic Arabs are bigots and Africans are considered inferiors.

(4) Another unnecessary comment in another photo: "They (park guards) travel on horseback thousands of miles a year to see that mostly Arab nomads do not make short work of all this abundance of nature (don't kill elephants)."

It's interesting to know the park guards travel on horseback thousands of miles a year, but is it important to know that the poachers are mostly Arab nomads?

The obvious comments that prejudice the Arab people seem to have escaped the National Geographic. More distressing is that after being alerted to the possible prejudice, the National Geographic authorities refused to reconsider the comments in the exhibit.

Recommend this article...

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:

Be first to comment this article

Write Comment

Please keep the topic of messages relevant to the subject of the article. Personal verbal attacks will be deleted. Please don't use comments to plug your web site. Such material will be removed. Just ensure to *Refresh* your browser for a new security code to be displayed prior to clicking on the 'Send' button. Keep in mind that the above process only applies if you simply entered the wrong security code.
Name:
E-mail
Homepage
Title:
BBCode:
Comment:
Code:*
	I wish to be contacted by email regarding additional comments

Powered by AkoComment Tweaked Special Edition v.1.4.4