Welcome to **/r/HistoryPorn**! This post is getting rather popular, so here is a friendly reminder for people who may not know about our rules. * **Personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form is not allowed**. This will be removed and may result in a ban. * **Keep the discussion on-topic.** Comments that do not directly add to the discussion will be removed and in some cases can also result in (temp) bans. Things not on topic are comments that solely consist of a joke, (political) soapboxing, etc. Additionally. * **Use that report function**. If you spot a rule breaking comment please do not make things worse by engaging in an argument. Downvote it and then report it using the report function or send a modmail to the mods so we can deal with it. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FHistoryPorn) if you have any questions or concerns. Replies to this comment will be removed automatically.*


[Steve McCurry actually took another picture.](https://preview.redd.it/6jr3xfhk2y271.jpg?width=501&auto=webp&s=4c4c6d4a510bed4a2776a10982e67eef2378dd16) He decided to use the other one.


That’s a much better picture. She actually seems ok with that one being taken.


Nah, the original photo is more striking, this other photo wouldn’t have become iconic.


I guess, I’m just pretty big on consent.


Unfortunately the whole photo series wasn't really wanted by the girl or her parents from the very beginning. Steve McCurry got some flack a couple years later from the photo after a couple of journalist tracked the girls family down.


It says she was orphaned at age 6 so if somebody did consent it wasn’t her parents


[Apparently](https://thewire.in/media/afghan-girl-steve-mccurry-national-geographic) that's not true. >"The 2002 story describes Sharbat Gula as an orphan whose parents were killed in a bombing in Afghanistan, which turned out to be false. She has said that her mother died of appendicitis and that her father was alive when they moved to Pakistan."


it never occurred to me that in some places in the world it might be a lot easier to die of appendicitis. i had my appendix removed in an emergency surgery and i can't imagine just all that pain and vomiting to the point where you die. jesus fuck


Yeh... I wonder if she was still alive, when McCurry forced Sharbat Gula to do the pictures. Would mean, that if he wasn't such a dick and shared the money with her earlier, the mom could be alive... :( This whole article is just really fucking sad...


Steve McCurry has turned out to be a mess in regards to ethics. From this picture, to PJ pictures that have been visibly photoshopped/retouched, he's kind of pariah now in photo circles.


I assume you’re not taking about Pajamas or Pearl Jam. What is “PJ?”


That’s what I remembered about it last time I read about it.


How would you know she consented on the second pic but not on the first one?


The story I read was they forced her to take her veil off, she didn’t want to. She doesn’t have a haunted look in the veiled picture. Obviously, he created the image he wanted, a distraught looking refugee, I just feel it isn’t genuine. She clearly looked like that because of the photographer.




She was angry. She didn't want to be photographed.


Not sure why we are being downvoted for stating something she said herself in an interview as an adult.... reddit is weird.


go be a sjw somewhere else


There’s literally been an interview with her where she stated this was the case, she didn’t want to be photographed by him and he did it anyway


I have no idea why you're being downvoted. Its absolutely true.


The guy he was replying to was commenting on how striking this photo is compared to the other which it is. Reply says that they're big on consent implying the original commenter doesn't care about that and is also just totally dismissing the other person's point.


She did consent to both photos.


My understanding was she was forced to remove her veil and had to be coerced into it. The other photo, where’s she covering herself she looks happy. I prefer it. It’s not staged for one (staged might be wrong word misleading might be better, the happy photo shows her look was because of being made to remove her veil).


This photo actually plays an important role in the ethics of photography and ideas of consent. Ariella Azoulay, in her book, the civil contract of photography. Basically, if i remember correctly though i definitely don't as it's a complex argument and i read it ages ago, this photo is non-consentual, the girl doesn't have any idea of the broader implications of being within the photo and can never respond to the audience she is presented to. I think, more generally, the girl didn't want to be in a room with a strange man and an uncovered face and was somewhat coerced into the photo. I read that this second pic is her hiding. [Edit] If I remember correctly, the broader discussion of the book is that there is no single actor involved in a photograph; the subject, photographer, editors and audience are all involved in a 'civil contract'. From the [book](https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9781890951894/the-civil-contract-of-photography), pages 349-351: >Since that single photograph, Sharbat Gula had no other pictures taken of her until Steve McCurry went back to search for her with the intention of telling millions of people the world over, all of whom had made her acquaintance through the first photograph, what had happened to her since –– not what fate had befallen the Sharbat Gula who lived in a refugee camp, but rather what fate had befallen “the Afghan girl who was on the cover of National Geographic.” > >When first printed, in 1985, the photograph illustrated a generalized article on a refugee camp of Afghans who had fled their country due to the Soviet invasion. The girl’s photograph wasn’t printed along with her name or with any other details about her identity or her life. It was present in the article as an empty signifier of the exotic and of affliction. Following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, the photographer went on a search for “his” subject, whose name he didn’t know. His efforts to trace her were accompanied by a simulation of legal procedures intended to verify that the woman in the new photograph was indeed the same girl who had appeared in the old photographs, which not only framed her story between two National Geographic covers but, indeed, turned the covers into the real story. The photographer had to screen various candidates attempting to claim the coveted title of “the Afghan girl who was on the cover of National Geographic” so as to reject impostors, and he employed a series of humiliating examinations –– of the pupils of their eyes, of their cheek bones, of their skull structure, and so forth. The testing process was documented, displayed to readers, and recorded in a film on the whole affair. Experts in various fields carried out the process of verifying the photographed woman’s identity, not in order to substantiate her ownership of her image, but, on the contrary, in order to substantiate the photographer’s and magazine’s ownership of her image. Her consent to have her picture taken and her renewal of this consent, when it was proven to all that the person reaffirming the consent was the same photographed subject, made the photographer and the magazine the eternal owners of the image, relieving them of the need to share with her their ownership of the image or, needless to say, the profits they made from it. > >When the first photograph was taken, Sharbat Gula was indifferent to the medium of photography. She didn’t ask to voice her complaint through it. Most likely, she didn’t know that a photograph could be used to such purposes, and she therefore didn’t expect it to free her from her predicament. The first photograph printed on the cover of National Geographic didn’t express the civil contract between her and the photographer or the readers of the magazine. It was more like a business contract that one side manages without the knowledge of the other side. Her breath taking beauty and her exotic dress, coupled with her dissociation from any concrete reality and the concurrent preservation of the abstract “otherness” of the landscape and surroundings, helped turn her into an icon, a logo selling itself. Her beauty –– her green eyes and her dark skin, her look, her otherness –– all these turned into signifiers of affliction of the kind that remains unseen, unknown, and that therefore is mainly moving. For those interested, a scholar of photography and ethics said Azoulay's [more recent](https://www.versobooks.com/books/2009-civil-imagination) book with Verso espouses similar ideas and is a bit more digestible.


Oh I saw it as playful, interesting how I filled in blanks in my head (I felt she was smiling though I couldn’t see it).


What bothers me is that, like the images of girls during the Yazidi Genocide, a photographer (or publisher, I don't know) gravitates toward girls with striking blue eyes. Because that, unfortunately, apparently makes them more relatable to us white Europeans.


Because they are just that - striking - because the darker skin against the lightness of the eyes. I don't relate to that picture (aside from a recognition of humanity) - the culture is vastly different than mine. (I'm not pooping on your post - I just don't see relatability from my point of view)


Oh please, it's obviously because the rarest things are always more appreciated and blue and green eyes are more rare than brown eyes. You don't need to make up some BS to make this picture more deep


Thank you for this common sense. The poster above can't see the wood through the trees. To quote them back 'The photographer gravitates towards the *striking* blue/green eyes.' Perhaps because they are striking?


She was actually not ok with her pictures being taken at all


That’s heartwarming and cute as fuck.


[NatGeo follow up article with her in 2017](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/pages/article/afghan-girl-home-afghanistan)


That article mentions that she hoped her daughters would have the education she never had and that they were enrolled to go to school. I can't imagine how she and others must feel now.


Dude I just finished the Kite Runner like a couple days ago. A few years ago or so the ending of that novel would've given you hope that there will be a better tomorrow for Afghanistan. Now it just feels incredibly bitter and disheartening.


A thousand splendid suns is even sadder and more applicable to the future situation of these women unfortunately.




I honestly feel the most bad for all the girls who have grown up in freedom and never experienced the oppression brought upon women by the Taliban.


It's some fucking Handmaid's Tale shit. Horrifying.


**Spolier Alert about the book** I finished the book a week ago. At the end of it there is a “History” section where they have a symposium about Gilead. They end up extraditing everyone who escaped to Canada…and then Gilead spreads all over the world. That was super depressing to read.


> They end up extraditing everyone who escaped to Canada…and then Gilead spreads all over the world. That was super depressing to read. I .. Really don't think that's how the book ends? Are you sure? Are there like two endings?


I haven’t read Testament yet, but at the very end of The Handmaids Tale, right after she gets taken in the van, their is a section called ‘Historical Notes’ and it’s read from the year 2195 looking back at the journal like a historical artifact. Edit: [Screen shot from my Audible Book](https://imgur.com/a/8YtqvZY)


Yeah but that section makes very clear that [Spoilers] Gilead has not spread all over the world, I suspect the poster above is misinterpreting or misremembering what happens.


Per /u/El-Goose, yes, but nobody got extradited to Canada and Gilead didn't spread over the world. However, there is a critical subtext to this section that I [and seemingly a lot of people] apparently missed, which is that the symposium in a contemporary, "modern" world (like ~1985 Canada when Margaret Atwood would've written HMT) where women do hold jobs and have the rights that we see today, where (a) it just so happens that only men are talking, (b) Offred receives light scorn for not doing more, in her story, to aid future retrospective historical efforts, and (c) the attendees seem to have a sort of grudging albeit disdainful respect for the prominent "historical" figures of Gilead. The implication being, of course, that the enlightened, Post-Gilead future is not exactly a 100% difference from Gilead, and is indeed, almost 100% the same as 1985 Canada.


I feel worse for women who were finally freed (or at least given leg room) after an entire lifetime of subjugation, only to have to ripped away again.


Gods the part where she eats pebbles haunts me. So simple and cruel.


I had to read this book in middle school for a class and it horrified me. It made me feel good whenever I realized things could possibly be better for them and now we’re back at square one.


Our English teacher made us read it in school, and I'm still thankful she did.


Found that in a book box, but refused to pick it up because it hurt to remember the scenes we watched of the movie adaptations and my teacher saying "in the book, it's much much worse." :( Looks like someone else took it, so hopefully they enjoy it


There was never going to be a happy ending for Afghanistan. It has always been common knowledge that the US backed Afghani government is corrupt and inept. Why would the leaders of the nation stay to fight when they can flee the country with the millions of dollars of looted American tax payer funds? Their president is currently in the UAE likely living in luxury while his people are being raped and murdered in the streets. ​ And speaking of inept government, the men currently leading the Taliban were released from imprisonment by the US.


The Kite Runner is literal example of distortion of reality.


I saw that some women had taken up arms against the Taliban. Seems like the US army should have focused on training the women to protect themselves & their country.


When I was there in 2018, a lot of women were integrated with special forces operations, they would fly out every single night for raids and just about anything you can imagine. There's a lot of very tough women in Afghanistan.


I'd imagine they'd have to be.


*When you're wounded on the Afghan plain* *And the women come to cut up what remains* *Just roll to your rifle and blow out your brains* *And go to your Gawd like a Soldier*


They did. They had numerous programs to get women military training. But the men and the women’s families forced them out, or worse. It was making strides, but it’s still an extremely conservative and misogynistic society.


It's basically 150 years in the past in terms of women's rights and even nation building. You can't really bring it to the 21st Century in just two decades, it makes zero sense.


My thoughts exactly!! As I was reading the article, I was thinking her government stipend must had stopped by now and it won't be long before the taliban come looking for her


That whole article portrays her unhappiness. I can't imagine much better is in store for her or her children, and it is infuriating.


Really? I imagine she's pretty upset watching her country backslide almost overnight from their one chance to break the mold right back to where they were 20 years ago.


That's exactly what he's saying. That it's heartbreaking and so incredibly demoralizing and bleak. He just can't fathom the depth of those feelings. What do you mean "really?".


He's intentionally taking "I can't imagine" the wrong way. OP means "it's beyond my comprehension" but Momo is saying "why can't you imagine? It's pretty obvious..."


Sorry I wasn't more obvious, I guess I was giving them shit for being obtuse, which is admittedly rude. Perhaps I should be kinder since it's not unlikely that the turn of phrase could be lost on non English native speakers.


20 years ago they were still climbing out of the last time they were invaded.


Maybe, but the problem this time isn't that the US "left them a hole to climb out of", it's that the Taliban insist on actively dragging the country back to the hole they were in before. It's easy to sit there snidely wagging your finger at the US while playing armchair geopolitical policy expert, but I fail to see how the Taliban being allowed to stay in power for the last 20 years would somehow improve the situation in Afghanistan -- especially for the Afghan people themselves.


It's even likely that the reason the current Taliban are making concessions and trying to improve their PR by claiming to let girls go to school is *because* the last two decades Afghanistan had progressive ideas introduced and it wasn't all in vain. Still mostly in vain, but not totally.




because a lot of Americans aren't actually involved at all in the US going to or leaving Afghanistan and therefore don't actually have any reason to take responsibility for it




You can hold the US responsible for many things, but in the 70s/80s the Soviet invasion is what turned that country into what it is, and Pakistan’s ISI created the Taliban by teaching extremism to young Afghan refugees.


Who funded trained armed the Taliban and created alqaeda? It was 🇺🇸. I’m guessing by the down votes some of yall don’t like the truth. 😆. Pathetic.


The U.S helped the ISI do so...


The ISI was the one with the routes into Afghanistan and contacts within the various Mujahideen groups. CIA was supplying arms and funds to the Mujahideen but weren’t connected to the Taliban — Taliban was a Pakistani project.


That's actually wrong. You need to go reread the history. Western powers suppirted the Mujahideen, yes, but the U.S specifically was involved in Pakistan's creation of the Taliban, as well as backing more extreme Mujahideen factions like the one led by Hekmatyar, while the British and French backed Masoud. Those factions were quite important to the defeat of the more moderate factions in the ensuing civil war after the Soviet withdrawal. I recommend the book Afghantsy by the firmer UK ambassador the the USSR and scholar Roderick Braithwaite, whose brutally honest history of the war mentions this repeatedly.


Yes, CIA funded and armed Hekmatyar’s faction, and he is a power hungry religious extremist who eventually fought against the US and ISAF after 2001. It was incredibly stupid.


“Pakistani project” Why are you passing the buck to Pakistan? Everything that happened there we were 100% responsible for.


They don’t want to hear the truth. They don’t want to admit, we’re🇺🇸the bad guys in this story.


I was four months old when 9/11 happened. I couldn't vote until last year. Pray tell how I should take responsibility? Or how most Americans should take responsibility given it wasn't their choice when any of these things happened?


Says she was gifted a home by the Afghan government and a stipend. It suggested she had moved back to Afghanistan for the home but wasn’t clear. I hope it it is back in her home country that she and her family are safe, given the circumstances there.


“The new home has security, but they are cautious with who is invited in. Gul explains that the attention she's gotten since being identified as the subject of National Geographic's cover puts her at risk from conservative Afghans who don't believe women should appear in the media.” I hope she makes it through okay :(


It's definitely in Afghanistan, it says she moved back after 30 years as a refugee in Pakistan


Well that was a mistake


She was forced to go back after being caught with false documents in Pakistan. She wanted to stay in Pakistan but was threatened with jail time.


> The Afghan government pays rent and living expenses for her family. Well fuck ..


Those recent photos of her do not show someone with a happy life, yikes.


This is such a sad read given the events of the past two weeks.


Those are not highway miles.




Enhanced clothing and nutrition. Life has been better since I was born…


Wiki "Afghan Girl is a 1984 photographic portrait of Sharbat Gula, also known as Sharbat Bibi, taken by photojournalist Steve McCurry. It appeared on the June 1985 cover of National Geographic. The image is of an adolescent girl with green eyes in a red headscarf looking intensely at the camera. The identity of the photo's subject was not initially known, but in early 2002, she was identified as Sharbat Gula. She was a Pashtun child living in the Nasir Bagh refugee camp in Pakistan during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan when she was photographed."


To me that's THE iconic picture from McCurry although I know he took many more great pics


It could be argued as the iconic pic from Nat Geo. I actually clearly remember seeing it on multiple counters at houses in my childhood. It was weird because it was a child, like me at the time, but her life was so completely different than mine that I couldn't understand how she was like me. Her eyes though. They seemed to want something from me. I saw them in those different houses and remember thinking she was needing something, like she was in danger. She was. I didn't know.


>ferent houses and remember t The reason you got that feeling was because at the time, she wanted to not be photographed. Her face covering was removed so McCurry could take her portrait. It was against her upbringing and religious practice to expose her face in such a way, especially with a strange man present, taking her portrait. Imagine being put into a position where you are forced to disobey religious practice and risk being beaten as a consequence. Anyway.. Lots of controversy within this image if you read into it.


Was the part about her wearing a face covering in an article? Would you be able to share it? Just would be interested in reading it. I’ve only ever seen pics of her (when older) and she’s not wearing a face covering (Niqab). Just the hijab or more likely a Shayla (longer scarf head covering) .


Two stories conflated. At the time of the first picture (shown here) she was too young to be expected to have her face covered. The photographer sought her out in 2015 (might have been 2017) for a then-and-now photo shoot. It was at that time she was cajoled into removing her face covering. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/pages/article/afghan-girl-home-afghanistan https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuFKpaV_jjo


I had come across the video and in the description he actually back tracks and corrects on a lot of what he says. He did another video after as well, it’s in the description of the first video. The National Geographic article she seems to just be in more of a Khimar (face is visible). Niqab and Burqa fit/go on differently and would I believe require full removal not just unwrapping because they go fully over the head and face, burqa also is a full body one. The coverings are similar but called different things depending on how they are wrapped, or how they go on the head/body, and how long etc.


It must be some Rorschach test, but I distinctly remember her smirking. Now all I see is anger.


Wow, can’t believe she was 12, always looked older than that to me.


it's the stress. I look 50 now.


So do people in prison.


I remember seeing this picture on the front of the national geographic, when I was in elementary school , never thinking the usa would get involved in Afghanistan.


While not realizing they were already involved with Afghanistan.


Yep the things you learn growing up. Edit: 5 year olds know nothing of politics. It's a shame this girl got stuck in the middle of the war, I would be a much different person if I had been in her shoes.


A tough life will age you fast. I hope she's happy and is able to enjoy the rest of her life.


She was waiting for a bad life… Poor girl “She was raising four children and was suffering from hepatitis C, which killed her husband years earlier.”




**tl;dr: This photoshoot happened at a school and Sharbat (the girl) recollected as an adult that, at the time, she was angry that she was confronted by a strange man, and she was scared and sad when she learned that the photo had been published.** There is another picture from the same photoshoot of her covering her face with a scarf. She stated that she was trying to hide her face from the photographer. So basically in the photo she's pissed that a grown-ass man is invading her personal space and taking pictures of her in a way that she's not comfortable with.


Makes sense, if she wasn't even explained the photographer's intentions and asked for permission for everything. That probably happens a lot.


Damn, I had no idea that she was manipulated that way. That's a horrible thing to do to, especially to a child.


Tony made some mistakes. He made a follow up video about it. https://youtu.be/1q_NAEaiC9M


There’s corrections in the description on the first video now too. Glad he made corrections!


Poor woman, thank you for the link.


Wow, this needs to be higher.


This picture always reminded me of what I thought Chani from Dune looked like.


So Zendaya?


I use to stare at her on the cover of my social studies book while zoning out in class lol eyes are next level


Her face aged so quickly in her living environment. They took a picture years later it’s insane


I mean, I'm pretty sure we all age significantly between ages 12 and 45. You may be forgetting that the 1980s are four decades ago now.


Even the pic of her in the early 2000’s she looks much older than we in first world countries think someone in their 30’s would look.


She’s probably talking about the 2002 pictures of her and she’s 10 in the photo.


Happens to a lot of afghanis.


You can see the pain and distrust in her face…


I’m pretty sure she was in an all girls school. She probably felt frightened because a strange man came up to her in this female only space and took a photo. Or I’m remembering a completely different photograph. Anyone feel free to correct if that’s the case.


He was at the school taking photos. She was reluctant to have her photo taken and watched other children get their pictures taken first. After seeing the other children in front of the camera, she agreed to have her picture taken. I saw an interview with the photographer last year.




Here’s a great video about the [backstory of the photo](https://youtu.be/RuFKpaV_jjo) and basically how the girl has been singled out simply because of her eyes.


Here's the same guy admitting a bunch of mistakes in that video, which he took down for a while : https://youtu.be/1q_NAEaiC9M Apparently he put the original video back up so he could continue to monetize a mostly bullshit take on the photo.


Holy shit. If it weren't for that photo, she might not have been deported from Pakistan, where she had lived basically her entire life, back to Afghanistan. She's in her late 40s now. Unbelievable.


she wasn't deported because of the photo




The fact that this dumb comment got even one upvote is deeply depressing.


Sharia Law: something Westerners just make up to fit their narrative


It’s not really a “made up” thing when there are actually extremist groups pushing for it lmao


My comment is pointing out that people like to make up what they *think* is part of Sharia because they've never actually taken a look at what it entails, not that "Sharia does not exist." Two additional things. First, Sharia is not one specific system; it means that laws are drawn from the Quran, but like every legal system and religious text, these are subject to some level of interpretation. Second, Sharia [does not generally dictate that women wear a veil or cover their faces](https://veil.unc.edu/religions/islam/law/). Just because some idiot on reddit says so does not make it true.


It's funny because women are literally dying in Afghanistan right now from the paganism that is Sharia Law. It's not me being dumb, it's people like you being ignorant. In Sharia Law, you have to cover your face as a female or you will be stoned to death or tortured to the point of death. I was being sarcastic because I knew of this horrible ritual that they do there.


Except there was no "sharia law" like you describe under the socialist government in 1980s, when this photo were taken. The Mujahideen/Taliban brought it back in the 1990s, with the kind help from the US regime.


>the paganism that is Sharia Law. Oh my god, my sides. Your lack of even a layman's understanding of what the Romans called the Pagani religions is fucking hysterical.


Sharia Law is always different depending on the country you loony


I remember seeing this on the cover of TV guide. I was at a very awkward age, and I thought she was both alluringly beautiful, and yet desperately tragic. I didn't understand the depth of the situation at the time, but I did understand that look. I'll never forget this picture.


I wonder if the Taliban will let her keep her house and govt monthly stipend.


Fingers crossed, but sincerely doubt.


According to her nephew the government either stopped paying for her rent or never did in the first place


That’s what I was just thinking, do you know when this updated article is from? Never mind, it’s from 2017


[I heard she was arrested](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/afghan-girl-sharbat-gula-arrested). Something about fake passports and ids :/




I have the Steve McCurry book - Portraits and this is on the cover


I remember the magazine with her on it across from me in my grandparents' restroom everytime I sat down on the toilet. I'd have to flip it around each time I wanted to poop.


Such a beautiful picture, what a heartbreaking story. I hope she is doing ok with everything that’s going on 🙏🏼


Kodachrome, where have you gone?


Scrolled to see if someone mentioned Kodachrome. Extremely sad that it’s essentially impossible to develop now (some people have imitation processes but they’re not the same).


this picture was on my school textbook 20 years ago :)


is this the girl that Dan Carlin that he refers to in the early episodes in Hardcore History?


My father-in-law did the pre-print color processing for that picture. He has a large print in his basement but I hope to inherit someday.


It's annoying how many photographers have tried to copy this photo with cheap imitations


I can see the appeal. On one hand, it's just a human face, one of the most common photography subjects of all, and on the other it's a portrait masterpiece. Deceptive simplicity I suppose.


I see this picture differently because of Dan Carlin.


Growing up in the 90s, this is like the most famous photo in my lifetime by far.


Surprised I didn't see any comments saying this but this is literally 1984


There's a picture of this girl at this Kabob place I eat at, mad


Very few modern magazines have value beyond their initial release. It usually has to be very old. But this NG cover is collectible and a nice copy can sell for as much as $25, which is something for a recent periodical with a circulation in the millions.


https://www.nationalgeographic.com/pages/article/afghan-girl-home-afghanistan Here is an update on her from 2017, I wonder how she is doing today?


That girl was only 14 years old! Talk about a hard life! My wife has a copy of the book about her at her Book Store!


Several years ago the art museum I worked at had a show of Steve McCurry's work. I bought a pack of cards from our shop with this photo on them. It turns out that there are literally zero getting card occasions that call for a haunting photo of a young refugee. Its a 20 pack and I hate to throw them away so now I just send one copy to my sister for her birthday every year.


I wonder how much she got to see of the money made from her photo…


I doubt any… it was taken without her permission… the photographer took a few shots and she ran away… read top comments for more info


Thank you for posting this.


What I imagine Chani from the Dune universe looking like


She was tracked down many years later in a small village,unfortunately lets just say living in those conditions takes a toll on a person lets just say she was rugged


The subject hates this photo and wishes she never allowed it to be taken.


She used to. Now she says she's proud of it because it has brought attention to refugees, widows, and their children. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfY2zfv7\_V0


Region for vpn?


Ngl I didnt know Afghan people looked like that. I thought they looked Arabian with dark hair and dark eyes. Didnt know they could have green eyes.


I met Iraqis (Arabs) with bright green eyes.


Well in all honesty I dont think I've ever actually met someone who is Arabian at all. I've seen mosque in my home town and even a brightly colored Buddhist temple towards my state capital. However I've never seen a Sikhs or Muslims. Where I live most people are either White, black, and hispanic.


Based on how the average redditor talks about arabs, I'd bet you're far from alone here.


If you want to meet anyone of a different religion/ethnicity (remember that there are such things as Baltic Muslims, African Muslims, Persian Muslims..etc) you could reach out to their places of worship and ask them if you can come by and meet some of them and experience their practices. Cross cultural enrichment is the #1 reason why I could be born in a ethnically near homogeneous region known for its distrust of minorities and racism but have wonderful relationships with people across a broad spectrum of life.


The region has always been a massive melting pot of its own kind. This area of the world was ruled by so many different groups, from Persians to Greeks to varying Arab and Turkic Muslim empires to the Mongols and many more, so it is not surprising that the people there would be very genetically diverse.


Afghanistan is a diverse society of many ethnic groups, all drawn together in an artificial border. There’s no one image of what an Afghan looks like, but a sizable minority are Caucasian.


I heard more than once, from soldiers who served over there, that it’s very easy to come across people with blue eyes or some Afghans that could even pass for Caucasian. It’s been a crossroads of trade and empire building for thousands of years, afterall.




That is the look she gave when she was being violated by an unknown man taking pictures of her alone in a room


she was free and her people where free....now all that.....all that is gone.......


This is one of the most visually stunning portraits ever taken and is what I think of first when I think of Steve McCurry, one of the GOATs of photojournalism. It does make me sad to think that she basically is one of the most famous people in the world but lived in relative anonymity and poverty her whole life while McCurry built a photography empire.


Just like Picasso made millions but his models remained completely unknown women with really crooked eyes.


Do the people in her region have green eyes?




it’s because the color lets you see how small her pupils are, and that in turn contributes to the disturbing quality of the pic. I have dark eyes like you and don’t feel insecure about it (neither should you) bcause when I was a kid and forming that self esteem about looks, I read something that stuck with me: dark eyes were preferred by early filmmakers because they look pleasant on camera, especially important back when black and white film tended to wash out light colored eyes. Love your friendly eyes and don’t be envious of a photo that, while beautiful, is famous for the disturbing mood it provokes.


That doesn't have anything to do with history.


it has everything to do with history....


I've seen some stunningly beautiful Afghan women here in NY. Stunning. Usually with some much older guy. Disgustingly older in some cases I wanted to throw up.


Unbelievable they would rather that than be with a real man like you 🙄




Why does she look like Elijah Wood when he took the ring for himself at mount doom