dof

is it necessary to label the photo "Negro boy" surly "boy" will do or if needed to make reference to his race for historical context surly African American. just like to point out that i am not PC mad just thought this title was a little odd. after all this guy is probably alive wonder what he would think to being called "Negro boy"

I guess it must be the original title, or the agency caption as mentioned above. I don't see anything wrong in keeping that title, it reminds us of the mindset of some people in that time and it could even be an anti-racist statement.

I Like the photo but not the tittle.

yes but the title is part of the times the image was taken in
therefore the title itself has a historical context.

it might not be nice or acceptable context, but to change the title as given by the original photographer, changes history. Essentially whitewashing the past.

The titles are all drawn from the original descriptions of the photos - if you browse around on the Library of Congress's American Memory project you'll see a lot of outdated terms sometimes, but that's the way people talked back then. This is part of why they need help from people tagging pictures - we look for pictures using different words than the photographers or librarians back then would have used.

i feel lost inside this picture

Gorgeous.

The 1912 Progressive Party Convention, that nominated Teddy Roosevelt for President and Governor Hiram Johnson of California for Vice President, was held at the same venue, in August.

In this photo of some of the same people, they are identified as being members of a Pennsylvania delegation, so Bain's fact checking left something to be desired: www.flickr.com/photos/library_of_congress/2163942622/in/p...