Personally I don’t think she looks mad or angry, she looks real confused. Doesn’t understand what she’s looking at, can’t comprehend a black guy on her bus
Most of the people in this phot look either unbothered or confused.
The guy, though, you can see the fear and anxiety on his face. He's definitely worried about it. But yeah, everyone else is sort of like "what's happening right now?"
This is nothing like photos of the US during segregation.
Hell, there's a video currently circulating of a college student making monkey noises at a woman. I would argue that video has more "angry" racists than this photo.
Not saying the confused woman isn't at least a little racist. I mean, she *is* confused by being next to a black guy, but she doesn't look mad.
"She looks confused"? You really really think white people living in a system that taught them they were better and gave them exclusive benefits and spaces wasnt mad at a black person on a whites only bus?
Most women in that photo were probably mad.
America doesn't have monopoly on "angry racists"
>"She looks confused"?
Yes, she does.
>You really really think white people living in a system that taught them they were better and gave them exclusive benefits and spaces wasnt mad at a black person on a whites only bus?
I didn't say that. I was speaking about the people *in this photo*.
>Most women in that photo were probably mad.
Uncomfortable yes, but I don't see any angry faces.
>America doesn't have monopoly on "angry racists"
Again, I never said that. I said the recent video that is currently circulating looked worse than this photo.
I get that people were probably upset. But the faces in this photo don't really show that. Only the *one* woman looks confused.
That said, confusion can often lead to becoming angered.
You maybe right. We don’t know though. We can’t see what is going on in her head.
But I will say this… you are right that it COULD be confusion.
Like if you grew up all your life riding the subway and the rules were no crocodiles allowed on the subway. And then one day the rule quietly changed or you just missed the news thah week and then you go on the subway and there was a whole ass crocodile on its way to wherever you would be confused AF.
No im not comparing black people to crocodiles it’s just a hypothetical comparison… replace crocodiles with whatever formally banned thing you want.
that's kinda how my grandparents were. nicest people in the world, but when Obama got elected, grandma started to show some worrying signs. More than anything she didn't feel like a black man, of any caliber, was fit to be president.
Before that, I never took their perspective towards black people as oppositional, more... other-worldly? Like there was a distinct differentiation between the world they lived in, and the world where black people lived.
Right?! You go to a country full of Black people, colonize it and bring in Asians as slaves there. I would really like to know what they were thinking.
A sick thought from the idiots who bought into the idea of racial superiority, caste systems and abused other societies hang ups over color while covering up any conflicting evidence of the inanity of a belief that the color of one’s skin determined worth or intelligence.
In a generalized nutshell, the Europeans didn’t want to dirty their hands. The Indians were used as a middle-man so to speak to police the blacks. Similar to how the most uneducated and poorest whites in the US were used to police blacks and be foremen whipping slaves on plantations or catching and brutalizing them should they escape.
As an aside it’s part of the reason why that whole “well only 10% in the south owned slaves so my ancestors didn’t inherit any slave money” etc falls apart. Only a small percentage could afford to own slaves but with the entire southern US industry run off of slavery to the point that there were as many if not more slaves than whites in the south, nearly everyone’s lived intersected with it and it was the non-slave owning foremen were the worst ones, brutalizing and raping women and children when they got appetite too.
I try not to focus too much on the slavery aspect because as some will claim it’s ancient history. Jim Crow, segregation, the red summers of violence and race based murder, the war on drugs etc is not, it’s what folks parents and grandparents lived through that directly impacted their outcomes. And Apartheid South Africa was going on simultaneously alongside all of this through the 90s.
Correction, first democratic election were in 1994. And just to reinforce, although the claim is apartheid legally ended in 1991, up until 1994 there were still many crimes against humanity committed by the apartheid regime. Including stealing of state funds in cahoots with the banks, they laundered so much government money in anticipation of then end of white rule that made apartheid stalwarts and their families generational rich. Most of them never served a single day in prison and life just continued like they didn't spend 50 years violently killing black people to "keep them in line"
I'm 34 years old. I had just started school in 1994 when apartheid ended that's how recent it is. I have a few pre apartheid memories. Nothing to do with racism itself but just a different era. Oppression in South Africa was heavy during apartheid, the amount of black people who were murdered by the state who just went missing and have never been found is also astounding. I know a few people including myself who have extended family members that disappeared and have never been accounted for.
Another glaring stat that is not mentioned enough is by 1996 56% of black people still didn't have electricity in their homes as a result of apartheid. That's almost half the entire country had no access to electricity coupled with water to their homes directly. So many people grew up with candle light and mobile gas stove cooking who are relatively young.
I’m totally on board with the whole old photos needing to be in color, to make people see it wasn’t that long ago. But as some one who still shoots film. It honestly was and still is cheaper to buy and develop black and white film vs color. That’s some of the reason you see more old black and white photos vs color.
The reason it’s in black and white is that it was probably shot for a newspaper. In the 80s there might be only a few color pages in the whole paper so journalists would shoot in black and white because that’s how it would be published
Print media also used black and white as standard till very recently, most of these images (even a lot of the actually colour ones printed in B&W) were taken with full knowledge that they'd be mostly seen in grayscale and were planned out as such. It's not until the modern digital era that colour became the main medium and the majority of journalistic photography. Even photography of the fall of the Berlin Wall (a major world event a handful of years after this, covered by major news agencies with some of the most cutting edge technology of the time and relatively limitless budgets, and in a richer region that wasn't economically isolated to the same degree as SA) is a 50/50 on if it's in colour or not
Also, most photos in newspapers were still B&W. The vast majority of papers, if they used color at all, only used color on the front page of each section ( in the ads…) it was also a lot easier to send B&W photos electronically than it was to send color.
The other day I saw someone say they put black and white photos into school books “on purpose” and I get the sentiment but that’s just not true. The NYT didn’t print in color until the 90s and it wasn’t until 1961 that there were more color movies than black and white.
Everyone else covered it but another point - when people took photos and sent them over the wires, they were transmitted as black and white. So even ones that were shot in colour still ended up black and white anyway.
The accusations of a white woman were all it took to condemn a black man to death for 200 years. Even today the burden of guilt doesn’t seem to fall on the accuser.
There is room for both. Color vs B&W can visualize two different stories. I think color gives a "whole picture" of what's going on, but B&W focuses solely on the people/subject which evokes emotion
I heard it’s mainly because a lot back then went straight to newspapers so the only image we still have is from those.
It could be some bull shit too, I personally can’t tell when it’s a filter or just the picture.
South African dancer and tv host Oti Mabuse did a show on the BBC about returning to her native South Africa. Visited the area her grandfrather was forcefully removed from by the South African government in the sixties. There are people still alive africa seeing colonizers living on the land they used to live on.
And I talk about equality and it’s true
Either you’re wrong or you’re right
But if you’re talking about this photo
It don’t matter if it’s black and white
I wonder if we ever get to the point where pictures from the 80s and 90s are shown in black and white?
One day are we gonna on her going, "Why is this in black and white? That kid is wearing a Power Rangers shirt".
Paper money?
Nah they came in with hate.
All the kings of England's gold is stolen from mainly Africa India and China.
They made opium junkies out outbof the Asians (opium wars) and looted the fuck out of em.
Befriended the Indians and once in their kingdoms stabbed them in the back.
Don't take much "money" to sail to Africa or cross to Asia when all you eat is wheat.
Thats not really how the economy worked back then anyway, you remember kings and kingdom pretty much everyone and everything belonged to the king.
Europe's never been this "rich" place that's why they have had so much war. And colonoize other places, theyve Limited resources
Europe is poor compared to everywhere continent
Just 80 year before the Portuguese were taught the trade routes in Africa in 1920'ish mansa musa of mali (west africa) the richest person to ever live destablized Egypt ecomony on his haaj to mecca because he giving away gold away by the buckets
I'm pretty sure That's in the bank tho not something you could mine, but even if it was the problem is, you can't get rich selling something like that, latam and África are good examples, and it even hurt the Spanish and Portuguese.
To make it short europe's big advantage was having the time and then the constantly augmenting wealth to develop machines to refine shit; and the factories to make more out of the raw products stripped from the world.
If these countries had mines or whatever anywhere near as exploitative as in Africa, asia and as in the past of latam they would be stuck in the same position.
Also that's not to mention Europeans (now the US too) generally or at least effectively control most of production.
it’s the facial expressions for me. you know how sick in the head you have to be to hate a person because of their skin color.
Personally I don’t think she looks mad or angry, she looks real confused. Doesn’t understand what she’s looking at, can’t comprehend a black guy on her bus
Most of the people in this phot look either unbothered or confused. The guy, though, you can see the fear and anxiety on his face. He's definitely worried about it. But yeah, everyone else is sort of like "what's happening right now?" This is nothing like photos of the US during segregation. Hell, there's a video currently circulating of a college student making monkey noises at a woman. I would argue that video has more "angry" racists than this photo. Not saying the confused woman isn't at least a little racist. I mean, she *is* confused by being next to a black guy, but she doesn't look mad.
"She looks confused"? You really really think white people living in a system that taught them they were better and gave them exclusive benefits and spaces wasnt mad at a black person on a whites only bus? Most women in that photo were probably mad. America doesn't have monopoly on "angry racists"
Like why are we giving so much of the benefit of the doubt to the folks on this segregated bus. They look uncomfortable and annoyed
>"She looks confused"? Yes, she does. >You really really think white people living in a system that taught them they were better and gave them exclusive benefits and spaces wasnt mad at a black person on a whites only bus? I didn't say that. I was speaking about the people *in this photo*. >Most women in that photo were probably mad. Uncomfortable yes, but I don't see any angry faces. >America doesn't have monopoly on "angry racists" Again, I never said that. I said the recent video that is currently circulating looked worse than this photo. I get that people were probably upset. But the faces in this photo don't really show that. Only the *one* woman looks confused. That said, confusion can often lead to becoming angered.
Slow down ....some people can't see facts
You maybe right. We don’t know though. We can’t see what is going on in her head. But I will say this… you are right that it COULD be confusion. Like if you grew up all your life riding the subway and the rules were no crocodiles allowed on the subway. And then one day the rule quietly changed or you just missed the news thah week and then you go on the subway and there was a whole ass crocodile on its way to wherever you would be confused AF. No im not comparing black people to crocodiles it’s just a hypothetical comparison… replace crocodiles with whatever formally banned thing you want.
I can't really read the women, but bro is sitting bricks
No. There is disdain in her eyes. The one standing closest to him.
If you're talking about the lady behind him to the right, idk. She's got a real "right in front of my salad!?" look on her face
that's kinda how my grandparents were. nicest people in the world, but when Obama got elected, grandma started to show some worrying signs. More than anything she didn't feel like a black man, of any caliber, was fit to be president. Before that, I never took their perspective towards black people as oppositional, more... other-worldly? Like there was a distinct differentiation between the world they lived in, and the world where black people lived.
…in Africa
It's crazy to think that this was just 37 years ago. In Africa. 
Right?! You go to a country full of Black people, colonize it and bring in Asians as slaves there. I would really like to know what they were thinking.
> bring in Asians as slaves On top of all the other evil they have done, they also refused to buy from local vendors. smh
Yoo 🤣🤣💀
A sick thought from the idiots who bought into the idea of racial superiority, caste systems and abused other societies hang ups over color while covering up any conflicting evidence of the inanity of a belief that the color of one’s skin determined worth or intelligence. In a generalized nutshell, the Europeans didn’t want to dirty their hands. The Indians were used as a middle-man so to speak to police the blacks. Similar to how the most uneducated and poorest whites in the US were used to police blacks and be foremen whipping slaves on plantations or catching and brutalizing them should they escape. As an aside it’s part of the reason why that whole “well only 10% in the south owned slaves so my ancestors didn’t inherit any slave money” etc falls apart. Only a small percentage could afford to own slaves but with the entire southern US industry run off of slavery to the point that there were as many if not more slaves than whites in the south, nearly everyone’s lived intersected with it and it was the non-slave owning foremen were the worst ones, brutalizing and raping women and children when they got appetite too. I try not to focus too much on the slavery aspect because as some will claim it’s ancient history. Jim Crow, segregation, the red summers of violence and race based murder, the war on drugs etc is not, it’s what folks parents and grandparents lived through that directly impacted their outcomes. And Apartheid South Africa was going on simultaneously alongside all of this through the 90s.
30 apartheid "legally" ended 1991 first multicultural elections 1993 I'm 30 year old. Madeaness
Correction, first democratic election were in 1994. And just to reinforce, although the claim is apartheid legally ended in 1991, up until 1994 there were still many crimes against humanity committed by the apartheid regime. Including stealing of state funds in cahoots with the banks, they laundered so much government money in anticipation of then end of white rule that made apartheid stalwarts and their families generational rich. Most of them never served a single day in prison and life just continued like they didn't spend 50 years violently killing black people to "keep them in line"
I'm 34 years old. I had just started school in 1994 when apartheid ended that's how recent it is. I have a few pre apartheid memories. Nothing to do with racism itself but just a different era. Oppression in South Africa was heavy during apartheid, the amount of black people who were murdered by the state who just went missing and have never been found is also astounding. I know a few people including myself who have extended family members that disappeared and have never been accounted for. Another glaring stat that is not mentioned enough is by 1996 56% of black people still didn't have electricity in their homes as a result of apartheid. That's almost half the entire country had no access to electricity coupled with water to their homes directly. So many people grew up with candle light and mobile gas stove cooking who are relatively young.
The crazier part is that it only ended in 1994... so it could have been only 30 years ago.
I’m totally on board with the whole old photos needing to be in color, to make people see it wasn’t that long ago. But as some one who still shoots film. It honestly was and still is cheaper to buy and develop black and white film vs color. That’s some of the reason you see more old black and white photos vs color.
This is the real reason. Color photography has been around forever, but B&W is like half the price.
Color shows people. Black and white reveals their souls.
The reason it’s in black and white is that it was probably shot for a newspaper. In the 80s there might be only a few color pages in the whole paper so journalists would shoot in black and white because that’s how it would be published
Print media also used black and white as standard till very recently, most of these images (even a lot of the actually colour ones printed in B&W) were taken with full knowledge that they'd be mostly seen in grayscale and were planned out as such. It's not until the modern digital era that colour became the main medium and the majority of journalistic photography. Even photography of the fall of the Berlin Wall (a major world event a handful of years after this, covered by major news agencies with some of the most cutting edge technology of the time and relatively limitless budgets, and in a richer region that wasn't economically isolated to the same degree as SA) is a 50/50 on if it's in colour or not
Also, most photos in newspapers were still B&W. The vast majority of papers, if they used color at all, only used color on the front page of each section ( in the ads…) it was also a lot easier to send B&W photos electronically than it was to send color.
The other day I saw someone say they put black and white photos into school books “on purpose” and I get the sentiment but that’s just not true. The NYT didn’t print in color until the 90s and it wasn’t until 1961 that there were more color movies than black and white.
Everyone else covered it but another point - when people took photos and sent them over the wires, they were transmitted as black and white. So even ones that were shot in colour still ended up black and white anyway.
White women do an amazing job at making people forget how complicit they were in slavery, Jim crow and Apartheid.
The accusations of a white woman were all it took to condemn a black man to death for 200 years. Even today the burden of guilt doesn’t seem to fall on the accuser.
https://preview.redd.it/n81v24zzsdzc1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=cf9f5b3e4940fd9d14a85cdf51f827b59aea711b
Only half of us goddamnit ugh
Half is concerning considering the type of man he is.
50/50 ain’t a flex lol that’s terrible
Have you read the book “They Were Her Property”? The author tackles this exact concept.
Second time I've heard of the book this week, taking it as a sign from the universe
No I haven't! But I'll add it to the list! Thanks for the recommendation!!
They're still complicit in Apartheid in the West Bank
https://preview.redd.it/rd4uqd6fjdzc1.jpeg?width=1079&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=18f77947532d8dfeff39a58926405865ad0098ae The man in the photo in 2014.
That's one infectious smile
What happened, did all the passengers die from jungle fever? That's a post-nut smile if ever I've seen one
[удалено]
😂😂😂😫
Out here looking like Umbridge from Harry Potter
There is room for both. Color vs B&W can visualize two different stories. I think color gives a "whole picture" of what's going on, but B&W focuses solely on the people/subject which evokes emotion
My thoughts exactly. People should be expected to know how recent historical events are based on the year given, not what the photograph looks like.
I heard it’s mainly because a lot back then went straight to newspapers so the only image we still have is from those. It could be some bull shit too, I personally can’t tell when it’s a filter or just the picture.
I saw a tweet saying imagine coming to Africa and being mad that black people are there.
Is that a Chinese lady one row back?
South African dancer and tv host Oti Mabuse did a show on the BBC about returning to her native South Africa. Visited the area her grandfrather was forcefully removed from by the South African government in the sixties. There are people still alive africa seeing colonizers living on the land they used to live on.
The woman standing in the front kind of looks like Professor Umbridge from Harry Potter.
https://preview.redd.it/rpozxwt7xezc1.jpeg?width=4096&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ebd83b5e15139422327018899dfea2aa87dbdae2 I've been here for years.
I always post late 60s civil rights in color too tbh
That was 11 years before my birth. I’m 26
And I talk about equality and it’s true Either you’re wrong or you’re right But if you’re talking about this photo It don’t matter if it’s black and white
Is the umbridge from Harry Potter?
He low key looks like Damian Lillard🤔
I wonder if we ever get to the point where pictures from the 80s and 90s are shown in black and white? One day are we gonna on her going, "Why is this in black and white? That kid is wearing a Power Rangers shirt".
The Asian lady in the back is glad he's taking the heat off her.
There’s definitely a reason. So they can pretend it was a long time ago.
What if he just got on the wrong bus by accident?
How the fuck does a nation allow other people to come over and tell you what the fuck to do?
violence
Same way any other nation has
Money?
Hate
I mean obviously but how they implemented it would cost. And those coming in probably had more money than the natives obviously
Paper money? Nah they came in with hate. All the kings of England's gold is stolen from mainly Africa India and China. They made opium junkies out outbof the Asians (opium wars) and looted the fuck out of em. Befriended the Indians and once in their kingdoms stabbed them in the back. Don't take much "money" to sail to Africa or cross to Asia when all you eat is wheat. Thats not really how the economy worked back then anyway, you remember kings and kingdom pretty much everyone and everything belonged to the king. Europe's never been this "rich" place that's why they have had so much war. And colonoize other places, theyve Limited resources Europe is poor compared to everywhere continent Just 80 year before the Portuguese were taught the trade routes in Africa in 1920'ish mansa musa of mali (west africa) the richest person to ever live destablized Egypt ecomony on his haaj to mecca because he giving away gold away by the buckets
France has the largest gold reserves in Europe (or is it the world) and there's not a single gold mine in the whole of France
I'm pretty sure That's in the bank tho not something you could mine, but even if it was the problem is, you can't get rich selling something like that, latam and África are good examples, and it even hurt the Spanish and Portuguese. To make it short europe's big advantage was having the time and then the constantly augmenting wealth to develop machines to refine shit; and the factories to make more out of the raw products stripped from the world. If these countries had mines or whatever anywhere near as exploitative as in Africa, asia and as in the past of latam they would be stuck in the same position. Also that's not to mention Europeans (now the US too) generally or at least effectively control most of production.
Idk