51–60 of 139 posts
Note to people who make decisions about content-based websites: Based on previous experiences with these kinds of features on websites, I half expected each picture to be on its own page. If it was, I did not intend to click past the first one. However, in this case I browsed the entire thing, and am much more likely to share this URL with others.
Note to people who make decisions about content-based websites: Based on previous experiences with these kinds of features on websites, I half expected each picture to be on its own page. If it was, I did not intend to click past the first one. However, in this case I browsed the entire thing, and am much more likely to share this URL with others.
Even better, the Atlantic's photo articles like this can be navigated with the arrow keys to go from one photo to the next.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understand this complaint. It's a US-based news source (The Atlantic) posted to a US-based news aggregator (HN). Why would you expect, or demand, it to not be US centric? You're more than welcome to post collections like this from non-US news sources on hacker news, if you wish.
Why would you expect, or demand, it to not be US centric? I, for one, would not. But "The World" in the title seems unwarranted. Just as it does for many "World Series" that only apply to the US, even if everybody deems American teams of sport X to be clearly above the rest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The photos of overt discrimination against African-Americans in 1962 remind me of the overt discrimination we are seeing against gay people today. I hope a similar retrospective in 50 years will see people saying "I find it surprising that there was discrimination against gay people at one time."
I don't see any similarity between the two. Blacks were trying to obtain equal rights. The right to marry same sex is one that no one has, not just gay people.
"I don't see any similarity between the two. Gays were trying to obtain equal rights. The right to be a black man and vote is one that no one has, not just black people."
Straight people have the right to marry. Gay people don't. Same exact issue. If you're not gay, you by default don't need the right to marry same-sex, just like if you're not black, you don't need the right to be black and vote.
The racism those photos document is startling. Just 50 years ago? Though, in my private high school in Indiana, in 1999 I overheard kids more than once telling n *er jokes. I heard less overtly racists at the school saying things like "Yeah, it would be weird to have a black friend." These were the rich kids who parents owned the local businesses. I have a hard time believing the kids weren't getting it from the pare…
"Yeah, it would be weird to have a black friend." ... I have a hard time believing the kids weren't getting it from the parents. I know that school is still basically exclusively white I think this is a non sequitur. (IMO) the stuff about "people are colorblind until society teaches them otherwise" is ridiculous, so you put these kids in an environment with no black children? Of course they are going to see black chi…
Labeling anyone of any color is racicst period. There is only one race called the Human Race!
If everyone recognized this and stopped describing one another in terms of colors, we could end fucking bullshit!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The photos of overt discrimination against African-Americans in 1962 remind me of the overt discrimination we are seeing against gay people today. I hope a similar retrospective in 50 years will see people saying "I find it surprising that there was discrimination against gay people at one time."
I don't see any similarity between the two. Blacks were trying to obtain equal rights. The right to marry same sex is one that no one has, not just gay people.
The right to marry (publicaly declare love and live as a family unit) is one that straight couples have and gay couples do not. Equal rights.
Wow, some great pictures. It's exciting to think of what we'll think of pictures taken from the year 2000 when we're all living in the year 2050.
We'll be thinking how cool it would be to see pictures from the year 2000 if only they weren't locked away by DRM formats that are now unreadable in the year 2050. ;)
Personally, I would predict incompatible formats with no decryption program available. Will Photoshop and .psd still be around in 50 years?
The racism those photos document is startling. Just 50 years ago? Though, in my private high school in Indiana, in 1999 I overheard kids more than once telling n *er jokes. I heard less overtly racists at the school saying things like "Yeah, it would be weird to have a black friend." These were the rich kids who parents owned the local businesses. I have a hard time believing the kids weren't getting it from the pare…
Reality check: in 1962, every American city, north or south, with a substantial black population had a thriving black business district and a commercial middle class. Example: Bronzeville in Chicago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas,_Chicago#Bronzeville
Enlightened white people destroyed these worlds and the people who lived in them. The replacement was this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Taylor_Homes
In San Francisco those neighborhoods were Third Street and the Fillmore. Pictures of Third Street from the 1950s show fancy cars, fancy clothes, fancy shops, not a white face in sight. Pictures of Third Street today show someone about to sucker-punch the photographer and steal his camera.
In 1962 there were no no-go zones anywhere in America. Today I could walk five miles from my home and be in a place where my life wasn't safe. Black America in 2012:
http://tosh.comedycentral.com/video-clips/uncensored---video...
Upside: black people can vote. For the same party, every time. For a black (or, well, half-East-African) president whose campaign office looks as white as a Romney family reunion:
http://freebeacon.com/minority-report/
I think the enlightened people of 1962 might be a little incredulous at all the back-patting going on in 2012. Nice job you've done of uplifting black America, 2012. With successes like this, who needs failures?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We'll be thinking how cool it would be to see pictures from the year 2000 if only they weren't locked away by DRM formats that are now unreadable in the year 2050. ;)
Not that I'm arguing against your point, but you've made me curious. Is there actual DRM on photos? I know videos, music, games, books... but I haven't heard of a DRM'd picture before. Any insight? Personally, I would predict incompatible formats with no decryption program available. Will Photoshop and .psd still be around in 50 years?