National Geographic: We Were Racist For Showing People Who Were Different Than Us; And Because They Thought Our Cameras Were Cool

Nat Geo has decided to enter into the newest progressive fad: stern self-denunciation of its own terrible, horrible, no good, very bad racism. It apparently hired an expert on glossy racist nature photography to tell it exactly how awful it had been. Chief among its sins: it showed pictures of (a) people from elsewhere in the world who tend to wear fewer clothes than we do wearing fewer clothes than we do, and (b) people from places that don't have cameras and shit being amazed at cameras and shit. Both of these things are, as you can see, superDUPER racist. Like, basically they couldn't BE any more racist unless they'd, I don't know, represented non-Westerners as exotic or different than us or something. God knows they probably otherized the shit out of other people.
   Who, incidentally, doesn't go gaga over slick technology they've never seen before? We gawk at the stuff like crazy and we see it every damn day. How can you be so goddamn puritanical or whatever it is as to flagellate yourself over showing people having perfectly goddamn natural, amazed reactions to objectively amazing shit? I guess they should have been like: "Listen up you guys, you gotta act SUPER FUCKING BLASE about this technology or we're totally not putting you in the magazine."
   Cultural Revolution II: The Cultening seems to be proceeding apace.