<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/" 

	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Color Photos of the U.S., 1939-1943</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/</link>
	<description>Sociological Images encourages people to exercise and develop their sociological imaginations with discussions of compelling visuals that span the breadth of sociological inquiry.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2015 03:38:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: Blix</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/comment-page-1/#comment-530349</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Blix]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2011 00:03:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=32367#comment-530349</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I wonder what my generation&#039;s grandchildren will think we looked like &quot;back then&quot;? ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder what my generation&#8217;s grandchildren will think we looked like &#8220;back then&#8221;? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: couler in pictures</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/comment-page-1/#comment-510640</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[couler in pictures]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 08:11:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=32367#comment-510640</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Color Photos of the U.S., 1939-1943 В» Sociological Images Jan 11, 2011 &#8230; When I see these color pictures, not only does it seem less depressing and dreary, but the people &#8230; [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Color Photos of the U.S., 1939-1943 В» Sociological Images Jan 11, 2011 &#8230; When I see these color pictures, not only does it seem less depressing and dreary, but the people &#8230; [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Susana Machado</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/comment-page-1/#comment-450016</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Susana Machado]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Feb 2011 02:15:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=32367#comment-450016</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Barging in like an elephant in a china store....

This is not meant as an excuse but as an explanation: What happens sometimes ( and I am an of that ) is that someone is born and raised in a place where there are no &quot;other&quot; ( the word bothers me but I cannot find another one that fits better ). Until my mid teens I had never met someone who wasn&#039;t white and catholic. This had been a fact for centuries. Other skin colours, nationalities, religions existed, but it was something you saw on tv when they passed american movies.

When I arrived in Canada I met people from everywhere and I quickly got used to it, but for years, and even if I try not to I still do from time to time, a person&#039;s hair and skin colour was going to be the first thing I used as a describer because it was still the &quot;not like me&quot; trait I noticed first. It did not mean it was worse than me, or better than me, just different. it is hard for me to explain ( english is confusing as a fourth language... ) because I have the feeling that when I say different, people understand it as &quot;not equal&quot;  which is all sorts of weird for me. 

Now, I make the conscious effort and try not to use the term different because I know it may be hurtful to certain people, and try not to use skin colour, or hair colour as a first describer because I have learned about the historical context  in the US when I go there. But the formative years are important and when you are raised in a place that has minimum or no people of colour (I know it is the standard term in this site but it feels insulting to me because of the direct translation into my native language is just wrong ) and those that there are have no history of being oppressed it is hard to develop another culture&#039;s ethical rules. 
 As an example of this, I went to Chicago once where I met a black student from Gabon. During the party I mentioned to someone else something like &quot;You see my black friend at the bar? He is studying (something or other) too.&quot; Discussion ensued about why I didn&#039;t say african-american. &quot;But he is not american!&quot; didn&#039;t cut it. The consensus was that I was supposed to say just african. That I found very rude because it would reduce his nationality/culture to the entire continent. Anyways... in the end I relented but left the party with a very unseasy feeling about it and the whole race/colour situation in the US. 

Ok done now. As I said, not giving an excuse, jsut explaining a non-american point of view....]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Barging in like an elephant in a china store&#8230;.</p>
<p>This is not meant as an excuse but as an explanation: What happens sometimes ( and I am an of that ) is that someone is born and raised in a place where there are no &#8220;other&#8221; ( the word bothers me but I cannot find another one that fits better ). Until my mid teens I had never met someone who wasn&#8217;t white and catholic. This had been a fact for centuries. Other skin colours, nationalities, religions existed, but it was something you saw on tv when they passed american movies.</p>
<p>When I arrived in Canada I met people from everywhere and I quickly got used to it, but for years, and even if I try not to I still do from time to time, a person&#8217;s hair and skin colour was going to be the first thing I used as a describer because it was still the &#8220;not like me&#8221; trait I noticed first. It did not mean it was worse than me, or better than me, just different. it is hard for me to explain ( english is confusing as a fourth language&#8230; ) because I have the feeling that when I say different, people understand it as &#8220;not equal&#8221;  which is all sorts of weird for me. </p>
<p>Now, I make the conscious effort and try not to use the term different because I know it may be hurtful to certain people, and try not to use skin colour, or hair colour as a first describer because I have learned about the historical context  in the US when I go there. But the formative years are important and when you are raised in a place that has minimum or no people of colour (I know it is the standard term in this site but it feels insulting to me because of the direct translation into my native language is just wrong ) and those that there are have no history of being oppressed it is hard to develop another culture&#8217;s ethical rules.<br />
 As an example of this, I went to Chicago once where I met a black student from Gabon. During the party I mentioned to someone else something like &#8220;You see my black friend at the bar? He is studying (something or other) too.&#8221; Discussion ensued about why I didn&#8217;t say african-american. &#8220;But he is not american!&#8221; didn&#8217;t cut it. The consensus was that I was supposed to say just african. That I found very rude because it would reduce his nationality/culture to the entire continent. Anyways&#8230; in the end I relented but left the party with a very unseasy feeling about it and the whole race/colour situation in the US. </p>
<p>Ok done now. As I said, not giving an excuse, jsut explaining a non-american point of view&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: editrix</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/comment-page-1/#comment-435898</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[editrix]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 15 Jan 2011 20:12:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=32367#comment-435898</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m not going to point out the irony of your first sentence. And when did the word &quot;other&quot; become a verb?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not going to point out the irony of your first sentence. And when did the word &#8220;other&#8221; become a verb?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: against sexism</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/comment-page-1/#comment-435251</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[against sexism]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 04:17:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=32367#comment-435251</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A lot of white people in the 1920s and 30s thought black children were &quot;cute&quot;--they called them &quot;pickaninnies&quot; and made images of them getting humorously eaten by alligators, chased by tigers, their pants being bitten off, etc.  The sense being that they were cute and naturally funny and naturally kind of cartoon-like unbreakable, not needing the careful nurturing of, say, white children.

And, even today, some white people adopt children of color because they are &quot;cute.&quot; Some of these adults really are, at least that moment, incapable of realizing that the majority of their life-long relationship, assuming the parent lives to see the child to adulthood, will be with a teenager &amp; then adult of color who is not necessarily going to be &quot;cute&quot; to them. 

When I hear white people saying that non-white child is &quot;just so cute,&quot; cuter even than white babies, I&#039;m aware of the difficulty that many whites have in dealing with adults of color.

(PS, FWIW, I&#039;m white.)]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A lot of white people in the 1920s and 30s thought black children were &#8220;cute&#8221;&#8211;they called them &#8220;pickaninnies&#8221; and made images of them getting humorously eaten by alligators, chased by tigers, their pants being bitten off, etc.  The sense being that they were cute and naturally funny and naturally kind of cartoon-like unbreakable, not needing the careful nurturing of, say, white children.</p>
<p>And, even today, some white people adopt children of color because they are &#8220;cute.&#8221; Some of these adults really are, at least that moment, incapable of realizing that the majority of their life-long relationship, assuming the parent lives to see the child to adulthood, will be with a teenager &amp; then adult of color who is not necessarily going to be &#8220;cute&#8221; to them. </p>
<p>When I hear white people saying that non-white child is &#8220;just so cute,&#8221; cuter even than white babies, I&#8217;m aware of the difficulty that many whites have in dealing with adults of color.</p>
<p>(PS, FWIW, I&#8217;m white.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gwen Sharp</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/comment-page-1/#comment-435096</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gwen Sharp]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:09:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=32367#comment-435096</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sorry I wasn&#039;t in the comments at the time to clarify--sometimes my responses are slow.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry I wasn&#8217;t in the comments at the time to clarify&#8211;sometimes my responses are slow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gwen Sharp</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/comment-page-1/#comment-435095</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gwen Sharp]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:08:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=32367#comment-435095</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Syd--I should have clarified in the post, those were titles for the photos, not just descriptions that I made up for them--I copied them exactly from the attribution/title provided at the Denver Post to provide a citation.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Syd&#8211;I should have clarified in the post, those were titles for the photos, not just descriptions that I made up for them&#8211;I copied them exactly from the attribution/title provided at the Denver Post to provide a citation.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gwen Sharp</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/comment-page-1/#comment-435094</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gwen Sharp]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 18:06:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=32367#comment-435094</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To clarify, all of the titles are the original titles listed in the government archive, not just titles I made up. Some of the sender-inners said they had noticed that African Americans&#039; race was pointed out in the images in a way Whites&#039; wasn&#039;t, but I was posting in a hurry and didn&#039;t have time to go through and look at the trend as closely as you did. I think it is a great example of who gets humanized with a name and who doesn&#039;t. I assume the names of the photos were provided by the photographers, but I&#039;m not sure of that, so it&#039;s hard to clarify who exactly gave them the descriptions on file at the national archives.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To clarify, all of the titles are the original titles listed in the government archive, not just titles I made up. Some of the sender-inners said they had noticed that African Americans&#8217; race was pointed out in the images in a way Whites&#8217; wasn&#8217;t, but I was posting in a hurry and didn&#8217;t have time to go through and look at the trend as closely as you did. I think it is a great example of who gets humanized with a name and who doesn&#8217;t. I assume the names of the photos were provided by the photographers, but I&#8217;m not sure of that, so it&#8217;s hard to clarify who exactly gave them the descriptions on file at the national archives.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kailey</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/comment-page-1/#comment-435077</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kailey]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:08:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=32367#comment-435077</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I love these types of photos, because I admit, as a Kid, I thought the world used to be gray-scale and then became chromatic (a la Wizard of Oz) because it made sense to me that oh, cameras now produce images that look like the world - old pictures must be representatives of what the world looked like then... I did not have a sophisticated enough thinking to understand the technology of cameras, film and science is what made the transition from gray-scale to color photography possible.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love these types of photos, because I admit, as a Kid, I thought the world used to be gray-scale and then became chromatic (a la Wizard of Oz) because it made sense to me that oh, cameras now produce images that look like the world &#8211; old pictures must be representatives of what the world looked like then&#8230; I did not have a sophisticated enough thinking to understand the technology of cameras, film and science is what made the transition from gray-scale to color photography possible.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tiffani W</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/comment-page-1/#comment-434927</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tiffani W]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 06:54:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=32367#comment-434927</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That&#039;s not completely what I was getting at.  Yes, I do agree that saying, &quot;[race] babies are cuter,&quot; can be othering (although I think it could also be akin to saying, &quot;Babies with big eyes are cuter,&quot; or commenting on any other physical feature).

However, my point was that specifying the race of a person you encounter doesn&#039;t necessarily mean you&#039;re extending their traits/behavior to all people of that race.  It might just be a way to mark an unusual circumstance.

Believe me, I really get the not being seen as a human being thing.  People in Korea are regularly shocked by my existence - gaping mouths, pointing, laughing uproariously when I speak to them (in Korean or English), staring for minutes at a time, etc. - and I get spoken to just as often as not in the lowest/rudest language even by children and people in service positions because they don&#039;t consider me a person to whom politeness or decency standards apply.  

But I also don&#039;t assume that *everybody* who notices or comments on my whiteness/foreignness is necessarily dehumanizing me by doing so.  A lot of people legitimately just see it as one component of who I am, and I&#039;d be missing out on a lot of close relationships if I automatically assumed they were being racist.  I think it comes down to individual circumstances and how things are expressed.

PS I&#039;m not trying to diminish your experiences because our circumstances are obviously different.  I feel like I&#039;m whitesplaining a bit and I just want you to know that&#039;s not my intention!! &lt;3]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s not completely what I was getting at.  Yes, I do agree that saying, &#8220;[race] babies are cuter,&#8221; can be othering (although I think it could also be akin to saying, &#8220;Babies with big eyes are cuter,&#8221; or commenting on any other physical feature).</p>
<p>However, my point was that specifying the race of a person you encounter doesn&#8217;t necessarily mean you&#8217;re extending their traits/behavior to all people of that race.  It might just be a way to mark an unusual circumstance.</p>
<p>Believe me, I really get the not being seen as a human being thing.  People in Korea are regularly shocked by my existence &#8211; gaping mouths, pointing, laughing uproariously when I speak to them (in Korean or English), staring for minutes at a time, etc. &#8211; and I get spoken to just as often as not in the lowest/rudest language even by children and people in service positions because they don&#8217;t consider me a person to whom politeness or decency standards apply.  </p>
<p>But I also don&#8217;t assume that *everybody* who notices or comments on my whiteness/foreignness is necessarily dehumanizing me by doing so.  A lot of people legitimately just see it as one component of who I am, and I&#8217;d be missing out on a lot of close relationships if I automatically assumed they were being racist.  I think it comes down to individual circumstances and how things are expressed.</p>
<p>PS I&#8217;m not trying to diminish your experiences because our circumstances are obviously different.  I feel like I&#8217;m whitesplaining a bit and I just want you to know that&#8217;s not my intention!! &lt;3</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Syd</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/comment-page-1/#comment-434919</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Syd]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 06:37:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=32367#comment-434919</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fair enough.  The point still stands, just in regards to the original writer, not gwen.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fair enough.  The point still stands, just in regards to the original writer, not gwen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Syd</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/comment-page-1/#comment-434918</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Syd]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 06:36:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=32367#comment-434918</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Broad generalizations are ALWAYS hurtful and othering if used like that, whether you are saying &#039;black men are disgusting sexist pigs&#039; or &#039;black babies are so CUUUUUUTE!&#039;  Positive racial stereotypes don&#039;t make the behavior appropriate or less disgusting.

And whether black people might do it is irrelevant.  I&#039;d actually assume that a black woman badmouthing a &#039;skanky white woman&#039; in the way described DID have preconceived, probably negative, assumptions about white women.  But white women are not racially othered in general society, nor are we talking about black people qualifying white people&#039;s race, as that is a TOTALLY different situation, so the point is moot because the impact is so different as to be incomparable.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Broad generalizations are ALWAYS hurtful and othering if used like that, whether you are saying &#8216;black men are disgusting sexist pigs&#8217; or &#8216;black babies are so CUUUUUUTE!&#8217;  Positive racial stereotypes don&#8217;t make the behavior appropriate or less disgusting.</p>
<p>And whether black people might do it is irrelevant.  I&#8217;d actually assume that a black woman badmouthing a &#8216;skanky white woman&#8217; in the way described DID have preconceived, probably negative, assumptions about white women.  But white women are not racially othered in general society, nor are we talking about black people qualifying white people&#8217;s race, as that is a TOTALLY different situation, so the point is moot because the impact is so different as to be incomparable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Syd</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/comment-page-1/#comment-434914</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Syd]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 13 Jan 2011 06:32:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=32367#comment-434914</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It doesn&#039;t need to be malicious prejudice or hateful racism to be othering and hurtful.  I&#039;m sorry, but the fact that you &#039;just think minority babies are cuter&#039; does not make the statement any better.  It is still based in racism, even if it isn&#039;t based in hatred, and it still makes the statement that &#039;THIS PERSON IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE.&#039;  Speaking as a nonwhite person, the idea that you think qualifying language is positive or not it irrelevant.  It still tells me that you DO NOT see ME, or the Mexican catcaller, or the Chinese baby, or any other &#039;qualifier person,&#039; as a human being.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It doesn&#8217;t need to be malicious prejudice or hateful racism to be othering and hurtful.  I&#8217;m sorry, but the fact that you &#8216;just think minority babies are cuter&#8217; does not make the statement any better.  It is still based in racism, even if it isn&#8217;t based in hatred, and it still makes the statement that &#8216;THIS PERSON IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE.&#8217;  Speaking as a nonwhite person, the idea that you think qualifying language is positive or not it irrelevant.  It still tells me that you DO NOT see ME, or the Mexican catcaller, or the Chinese baby, or any other &#8216;qualifier person,&#8217; as a human being.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sarcastic</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/comment-page-1/#comment-434649</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sarcastic]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:05:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=32367#comment-434649</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s a shame these pictures were even taken- the photographers only took them because of the handouts by FDR&#039;s administration as a &quot;make work&quot; project for the unemployed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s a shame these pictures were even taken- the photographers only took them because of the handouts by FDR&#8217;s administration as a &#8220;make work&#8221; project for the unemployed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gen</title>
		<link>http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/01/11/color-photos-of-the-u-s-1939-1943/comment-page-1/#comment-434627</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gen]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 20:29:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/?p=32367#comment-434627</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I found this photo really appealing to me for an opposite reason; to me it looks much like a painting you would see by a Dutch master or an early Impressionist. Perhaps for the exact same reason, actually--until recently, paintings were the only way you could see historical images of people in color.

What I find really refreshing in all the photos is the lack of branding on anyone&#039;s clothes.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I found this photo really appealing to me for an opposite reason; to me it looks much like a painting you would see by a Dutch master or an early Impressionist. Perhaps for the exact same reason, actually&#8211;until recently, paintings were the only way you could see historical images of people in color.</p>
<p>What I find really refreshing in all the photos is the lack of branding on anyone&#8217;s clothes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
