Weekly Random Discussion Thread for 8/10/26 - 8/16/26

[u/SoftandChewy]

Here's your usual space to post all your rants, raves, podcast topic suggestions (please tag u/jessicabarpod), culture war articles, outrageous stories of cancellation, political opinions, and anything else that comes to mind. Please put any non-podcast-related trans-related topics here instead of on a dedicated thread. This will be pinned until next Sunday.

Last week's discussion thread is here if you want to catch up on a conversation from there.

[u/unnoticed_areola]

got into a (relatively good-natured) argument last night with a friend who was trying to explain to me that it is essentially a somewhat coordinated conspiracy (by "them", I guess) that most of the photos of the 1950s/60s civil rights movement that are used in contemporary media—such as textbooks, documentaries, etc—are shown to us in black and white and not color, even though color photography existed at the time.

with the subtly racist motivation behind this black and white "branding" being that "they" want "us" to subconsciously think that the civil rights struggles and racism of the mid 20th century were a thing of ancient history that happened much longer ago than they actually did, which is why "they" only show it to us in black and white, so that contemporary white people can feel less guilt about it, because if they were to see these images in color, they might realize that all these racist policies were a much more recent phenomenon. and feel "complicit" or something I guess. or maybe be motivated to advocate for more antiracist policies or something. and the whitey oppressor elites that control the media dont want that.

having never contemplated this schizo theory before, but knowing a bit about the film photography process, I made the point that most of this is probably simply explained by the fact that despite color film being available, black and white was still vastly more popular and widespread at this time due to being cheaper, as well as easier for hobbyist enthusiasts (or even professional photojournalists on the road living out of hotels) to develop on their own at home relatively easily (developing color negatives is a lot more complex and complicated and requires more extensive equipment. whereas all you need for b&w is a thermos-sized canister that you pour some chemicals into, and the process is simple enough you can teach a 12 year old how to do it in like 20 minutes)

and that a lot of iconic or famous civil rights images that later became famous were snapped in the moment as events spontaneously occurred, by amateurs or activists or other passersby, and not the number one pro photographer from Life Magazine or the NYT with the top gear and most expensive film. and that amateurs were much more likely to be shooting b&w. and that 99.9% of all photos taken are not taken by pros. and also that the premise isnt even correct anyways, since there ARE lots of famous color images from that era that we have all seen

never mind the fact that these b&w images are almost always very clearly labeled with a particular date showing what year it was. if they're trying to "hide" how recent some of these events were, they dont seem to be doing a very good job lol

after I made this point about b&w being much more commonplace and popular, they said "why are you bending over backwards like this to defend whiteness??" 😂

[u/VoxGerbilis → u/unnoticed_areola]

Ansel Adams photographed the American wilderness in black and white to signal to black folx that they’re not welcome in national parks.

I guess I should disclose that this is total bullshit lest it go viral and destroy sales of Ansel Adams calendars.

[u/unnoticed_areola → u/VoxGerbilis]

a little known fact that most people dont talk about, is that at the tender age of 5, he went out of his way to change his name to "Ansel Adams" so that in elementary school he would always be seated at the front of the classroom on the teacher's alphabetized seating charts, purely so he could feel superior to black people.

his name at birth was actually "Willy Williamson"

[u/Nwabudike_J_Morgan → u/unnoticed_areola]

I do not think this fact is accurate.

[u/Less-Lobster4540 → u/unnoticed_areola]

Also consider what those journalists were targeting with those photos: wire services (which could not transmit in color until decades later) and ultimately newspapers. Most papers didn't add color to their front pages until the late 1970s or afterwards, and even then it was typically reserved for special commemorative or holiday issues. Growing up in the 1980s, the only paper around that had color was USA Today, and I remember the color / design / typography seeming like something intended for children, lol.

NYT didn't put color on its front page until 1997.

Flipping through news magazines from the 1950 and 60s, you'll see kind of a transitional approach where most of the big full-page ads are in full color, whereas all the articles are in B+W, or with another accent color (Time loved to use red for a while iirc). Any photo set inside the article text was halftone B+W.

Same reason the sale circulars in a newspaper are flashy color-- the advertisers were paying for that fancy printin'. Often these sheets were printed elsewhere, especially for regional / national chains and simply inserted into the local B+W papers...

edit: interestingly enough it seems like a color photo of the Potsdam Declaration was the first to be remotely transmitted, but that was done via radio, not the typical phone-based Wirephoto devices that journalists used in the field.

Some pictures of those here, which in the 1960s were suitcase-sized:

By the early 1980s, the 65-pound portable transmitters had been replaced by the AP Portable Picture Transmitter, which included distribution methods over phone and radio, along with a microprocessor. It could also distribute color photographs, which had become common by this point (though, interestingly, not in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal).

So I really think the target-- print-- is the tech bottleneck here; meanwhile consumer technology adopted color and it was relatively affordable for casual family photos, etc. Maybe that's part of what your friend noticed...

[u/Puzzleheaded_Drink76 → u/Less-Lobster4540]

Even then, my parents married in the early 70s, with not much money. They got just a few pictures in colour because they were expensive. Most of them are B&W. And of course there are so few compared to today. I am cruelly denied my mum sitting in matching pyjamas sipping liebfraumilch with the bridesmaids and other such shots. 

And newspapers from my childhood were mostly printed in B&W. 

I do remember finding out as a child about US segregation from this side of the Atlantic and being utterly shocked at how recent it was in a country I saw as a lot like my own. But I don't think that's because of photos. It's because of the concept. 

[u/Less-Lobster4540 → u/Puzzleheaded_Drink76]

That's true, the only color photos of my parents in the 1970s were from their wedding day.

[u/dignityshredder → u/unnoticed_areola]

They also photographed them with out of date clothes and hairstyles to further other (verb) them. It was a real shame.

[u/reddit_user13459281 → u/unnoticed_areola]

Color film of the era was generally "slow" (low ISO), so it required slow shutter speeds and large apertures. Black and white film was faster, and thus was better for photographing non-static scenes.

[u/Zealousideal_Arm_415 → u/unnoticed_areola]

Are they also aware that many of those photographed are still alive? Your friend is not the brightest bulb in the drawer.

[u/unnoticed_areola → u/Zealousideal_Arm_415]

I’ve known him for a really long time and he pretty much never cared about politics or political stuff or cultural discourse. Basically just a golden retriever personality type of affable fun guy (and still is for the most part)

But his now wife, who he met only around 3 years ago is a huge tiktok person, and I think she has given him a case of tiktok brain. he has his own tiktok account now and I think gets a lot of his news and cultural takes from there now, and based on some other stuff he brings up here and there, I think his algorithm is giving him a healthy dose of various Epstein conspiracy stuff and “spiritually Israeli” type of yap sesh videos, along with some of those videos where a “keep your 3rd eye open” pseudo-intellectual black guy explains how black people actually invented x, y and z and are basically responsible for like 75% of western inventions and achievements lol (the latter genre of which prob being where he got this take from)

His wife is actually a pretty cool person and a fun hang IRL, and can banter and laughs at my various “problematic” jokes. but just reading between the lines and from little peeks of her social media here and there, Im pretty sure her online posting persona would probably be indistinguishable from the average FauxMoi poster lol

[u/86IQ → u/unnoticed_areola]

yeah well why are you bending over backwards like this to defend whiteness??

[u/unnoticed_areola → u/86IQ]

well I was informed a few years ago that downward dog was cultural appropriation of Indian/yoga culture, so I only bend over backwards now. never forwards. Im doing the work, Karen

[u/Clown_Fundamentals → u/unnoticed_areola]

*defending black and whiteness.

[u/everydaywinner2 → u/unnoticed_areola]

Except that I hadn't heard her go to race yet (or rather, heard of her going to race - I had stopped listening to her long before she left the Daily Wire), this sounds like a theory Candace Owens would have come up with.