Quote from: jhkim;1092645The discrimination might have some sort of mythological roots from working in the sun -- but in practice and effect, it is *actually* about skin color. Someone in India can be wealthy, successful, and cultured -- but still suffer discrimination because of the hereditary color of their skin. The same thing happens in Nigeria, and Jamaica, and the U.S. Many racists will say that they have good reasons to be biased against dark-skinned people -- but their myths, excuses and/or rationalizations don't change the fact that they're fucking racist.

Being biased against the hereditary color of someone's skin isn't classism, because it's based on hereditary physical characteristics -- not wealth or culture.

Dude it's not mythological, people that work under the sun get a tan (except black people I guess?), since the ones that did this were also Indian but of lower status, and the rich didn't get a tan it became a symbol of wealth.

Why do I even bother? I have explained it to you several times, you refuse to understand from where it comes, that it's not mythical, nor about race but about a symbol of wealth.

What I'm saying is you keep on thinking like you want, I happen to know from where it comes in the very specific case of India, China and Europe (Yes, Europeans also used to want to look whiter than the peasants weird huh?)

Now go ahead and cry RACISM!tm all you want.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1092634In México there's no such preference,

Do we know if the Aztecs/Incans/Mayans had any such preferences as existed in India, China and Europe?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1092659Do we know if the Aztecs/Incans/Mayans had any such preferences as existed in India, China and Europe?

Can't speak about Inca culture, but neither Mayans nor Aztecs or any other ethnicity had any custom about using something to appear lighter that I know off. But you have to remember that here they were really behind in many aspects (even if in astronomy they kicked Europe's ass 7 ways from sunday). So maybe that is something that evolves in a more developed society? Or maybe they were too busy sacrificing their enemies to the gods and eating their still beating hearts and participating in ritual cannibalism? (Pozole was originally made with human meat)

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1092647Dude it's not mythological, people that work under the sun get a tan (except black people I guess?), since the ones that did this were also Indian but of lower status, and the rich didn't get a tan it became a symbol of wealth.

Why do I even bother? I have explained it to you several times, you refuse to understand from where it comes, that it's not mythical, nor about race but about a symbol of wealth.

What I'm saying is you keep on thinking like you want, I happen to know from where it comes in the very specific case of India, China and Europe (Yes, Europeans also used to want to look whiter than the peasants weird huh?)

It's mythological when prejudice is based on *hereditary* skin color rather than a tan. Suntanned skin is not something inherited by children. We know that unquestionably in the world today, but India still has prejudice over hereditary skin color.


Is your claim that discrimination based on hereditary skin color is definitely *not racist* in the cases of India, China, and Europe? If so, do you then agree that in the Caribbean, Mexico, and the U.S., discrimination based on hereditary skin color is racist?


I can see that argument, but I don't think it folds out as neatly as that. Yes, being out in the sun does actually tan people -- but this can also become a chicken-and-egg situation if people who are *born* darker-skinned are considered fit only for manual labor, and are forced into such work - and prevented from intermingling with genetically lighter-skinned people. For example, within Europe, there were eugenics movements during the 19th and early 20th century. They were concerned about intermingling with traditional races like Africans, Jews, and Roma -- but also with various theories of the criminal behavior among whites. I don't think that neatly separates into racism and classism, since their theories often held that most criminals were a distinct subrace of whites that could be separated out. Casare Lombroso's "The Criminal Man" (1911), for example, attempted to identify the characteristics of a criminal / socially-defective race. The eugenicists were concerned with genetic impurities both from foreigners and from domestic groups.

When prejudice is over hereditary skin color and other hereditary attributes of a traditionally separate breeding group -- and considered a problem to be bred out -- then I think it is as much racism as it is classism.

Quote from: jhkim;1092667It's mythological when prejudice is based on *hereditary* skin color rather than a tan. Suntanned skin is not something inherited by children. We know that unquestionably in the world today, but India still has prejudice over hereditary skin color.

Lets see, if the Indians that don't get exposed to the sun are lighter than the ones that do, which one is the hereditary skin color?

Quote from: jhkim;1092667Is your claim that discrimination based on hereditary skin color is definitely *not racist* in the cases of India, China, and Europe? If so, do you then agree that in the Caribbean, Mexico, and the U.S., discrimination based on hereditary skin color is racist?

No, my claim is that wanting to be lighter skinned stems from lighter skin being a symbol of wealth and social status in all of those cases.

Quote from: jhkim;1092667I can see that argument, but I don't think it folds out as neatly as that. Yes, being out in the sun does actually tan people -- but this can also become a chicken-and-egg situation if people who are *born* darker-skinned are considered fit only for manual labor, and are forced into such work - and prevented from intermingling with genetically lighter-skinned people.

Something that puts the chart ahead of the horses, in India, Europe and China the elites were lighter skinned because of lack of exposure to the sun, in Europe when things changed the status symbol became being chubby, because you could eat enough to gain weight. IF they were putting in place laws to those effects it would be very worrying and I think egeenics at least if not racism.

 

Quote from: jhkim;1092667For example, within Europe, there were eugenics movements during the 19th and early 20th century. They were concerned about intermingling with traditional races like Africans, Jews, and Roma -- but also with various theories of the criminal behavior among whites. I don't think that neatly separates into racism and classism, since their theories often held that most criminals were a distinct subrace of whites that could be separated out. Casare Lombroso's "The Criminal Man" (1911), for example, attempted to identify the characteristics of a criminal / socially-defective race. The eugenicists were concerned with genetic impurities both from foreigners and from domestic groups.

Yes, In Europe well after the elites used to wear makeup to look whiter, by a few centuries. Linear time. This isn't happening in India (who knows about China those commies are liable to do anything), the caste system is disintegrating thanks to education, meaning the poor can get educated and stop being poor. But their wish to look lighter remains because it was a symbol of wealth, just like it was to have smooth skin in your hands and feet. But you keep on focusing solely on the skin color, why is it?

Quote from: jhkim;1092667When prejudice is over hereditary skin color and other hereditary attributes of a traditionally separate breeding group -- and considered a problem to be bred out -- then I think it is as much racism as it is classism.

But Indians are born the same color (more or less) and they see remaining lighter as a symbol of wealth, and now beauty, together with having smooth hands and feet (yes even the men), because it's about not being a peasant but someone that doesn't do manual labor, now please keep obsessing over the skin color while ignoring the rest it's very informative.

Quote from: jhkim;1092667When prejudice is over hereditary skin color and other hereditary attributes of a traditionally separate breeding group -- and considered a problem to be bred out -- then I think it is as much racism as it is classism.

That's fair. Although, I'm unsure how its racism when it occurs within the same ethnic group. AKA, unsure how Indians, Chinese or Europeans preferring lighter members of their own ethnic group is racist. I understand what you're saying when its various ethnic groups interacting and judging each other.

Of course, the stereotyping of Race with Behaviors isn't a modern invention. You see such stereotyping in antiquity, long before the dominance of European nations.

Humans love to attribute Good Stuff to people who look like them, then attribute Bad Stuff to everyone else.

Mankind is a fucked up species.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1092680That's fair. Although, I'm unsure how its racism when it occurs within the same ethnic group. AKA, unsure how Indians, Chinese or Europeans preferring lighter members of their own ethnic group is racist. I understand what you're saying when its various ethnic groups interacting and judging each other.

Are all Indians really the same "race?"  There are hundreds of languages, ethnic groups,  and regions there, never mind China.

Quote from: ThatChrisGuy;1092681Are all Indians really the same "race?"  There are hundreds of languages, ethnic groups,  and regions there, never mind China.

excellent question, sadly we don't really know, because it's haram for any scientist to even ask. Never mind if it could help with health issues, etc. It could someday be used by someone to claim racial superiority ergo it must be a racist study and only a racist would ask the question. That's the sad state of almost all scientific institutions in the world.

What is race? where does one end and another begin? what's ethnicity? Good questions with no answer (that I know off), except if you count the authentic wacists, they do have answers, that funny enough always come to white race superior, mixbreeding bad. So I tend to not take anything they say seriously.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1092670But Indians are born the same color (more or less) and they see remaining lighter as a symbol of wealth, and now beauty, together with having smooth hands and feet (yes even the men), because it's about not being a peasant but someone that doesn't do manual labor, now please keep obsessing over the skin color while ignoring the rest it's very informative.

Skin color was the topic that was being discussed, so I think it should be addressed. That's sticking to the topic, not obsession. I quite disagree about your point here. Indians are not born with anything close to the same color - even given. There is a huge range of ethnicities within India - speaking different languages, with different features including skin color as well as other features.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3534[/ATTACH]

That's Nandita Das on the left, and Karishma Kapoor on the right -- both famous actors. Das isn't tanned from working out in the sun - she's born dark-skinned. Das has also been an activist pushing for more dark-skinned representation, such as in this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emoCRb4wAU0

It's a point that some people in India consider quite important.

I think this topic is also getting muddled because the issue of time. One can look at "preference for white skin" in the modern day through the lens of the effect of American marketing campaigns in print, movies and TV in the 20th century, but there is the complication of how (and if) this preference existed pre-contact with Europeans.

Also, I imagine the situation is even more complicated with ex-colonial nations where there exists centuries of interbreeding with the European ruling class (voluntary and otherwise). I also imagine the situation is even more complex when dealing with India or other ex-colonies which were major trade hubs for thousands of years so the amount of interbreeding to create "high vs. low" caste "ethnicities" would have occurred.

Oh well. Gotta nuke Earth from orbit. It's the only way to be sure the plague of Man does not spread.

Quote from: jhkim;1092684Skin color was the topic that was being discussed, so I think it should be addressed. That's sticking to the topic, not obsession. I quite disagree about your point here. Indians are not born with anything close to the same color - even given. There is a huge range of ethnicities within India - speaking different languages, with different features including skin color as well as other features.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3534[/ATTACH]

That's Nandita Das on the left, and Karishma Kapoor on the right -- both famous actors. Das isn't tanned from working out in the sun - she's born dark-skinned. Das has also been an activist pushing for more dark-skinned representation, such as in this interview:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emoCRb4wAU0

It's a point that some people in India consider quite important.

Lets see, the point was Indians wanting to look lighter.

And to counter my argument you use the argument from an intersectional racist. Well no, that's not fair, I don't know if SHE is a racist or an intersectional feminist, but her arguments are. This are the same arguments about including more of X group in your fiction because Psychos can't empathize but with themselves so they need to see themselves "represented on media.

Now lets see if you can wrap your head around this and stop moving the goal post:

The argument was Indians are racist because they want to have lighter skin, my counter argument was that no, this comes from a different place, namely high class vs low class and their characteristics. (Lighter skin and softer feet and hands) vs darker skin and coarser feet and hands)

Then you started to move the goal post to discrimination. Which is a very different argument.

So you mean to tell me that in a british colony now you have mixed race people with lighter skin? WOW! Mind blown! And of course, in the present day, given Indians TRADITIONAL look upon skin tone and texture maybe the lighter one has an advantage, is this discrimination? maybe is it racism? Maybe. BUT the preference for lighter skin didn't originate from a race based place.

Clear enough or do I need an abacus?

I asked my Indian friend for her opinion of race in India.  She said that she does not really care about race and on the other hand she does like to see Lighter skin.

From my studies and experiences it is mostly a carry over of elites (or at least wealthy) having the luxury to be indoors and go pallid, whereas the commoners had to work outside and darkened from exposure. It also only recently changed in Western society due to industrial factory & white collar work outpacing farming in the past few centuries due to the industrial revolution. It seems to have been a global demarcator of status for heavily stratified societies, like a sumptuary law for one's skin exposure to the sun. I would not read it so much with modern attitudes...

Quote from: Spinachcat;1092688I think this topic is also getting muddled because the issue of time. One can look at "preference for white skin" in the modern day through the lens of the effect of American marketing campaigns in print, movies and TV in the 20th century, but there is the complication of how (and if) this preference existed pre-contact with Europeans.

I expect Pundit is going to swoop is for that reason.

This makes me wonder if anyone has incorporated accentuated appearance into their game cultures. Skin lightening is a good example.  For example, 'ear molds' for elves that want their ears to grow a certain way.

Quote from: Lynn;1092756I expect Pundit is going to swoop is for that reason.

This makes me wonder if anyone has incorporated accentuated appearance into their game cultures. Skin lightening is a good example.  For example, 'ear molds' for elves that want their ears to grow a certain way.

No, but I do include cultural prejudice in most of my fantasy campaigns and also "specieism" since in my world the different "races" aren't races but species.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1092633Lets put it in gaming terms:

In the last fantasy campaign I GMd Elves, Dwarfs, etc weren't races but species (as I'm wont to do), so not able to interbreed. Now, I had several different "kinds" of elves, the high born, wood elves, dark elves, each living in different places and looking different (because evolution) but same species and so able to interbreed. The high born were all kinds of colors but most were kinda white/yellow, the wood elves were brownish/greenish and the dark elves (living in fucking caves) were the palest of all. Each and every one looked down their nose to the others, the high born because they are royalty, the wood ones because they are the true way of the elves, protecting the forests, and the dark ones because they didn't deal with humans so they didn't have that stench on them.

So there was prejudice among the different kinds of elves, but it wasn't racial it was social, and from the dark elves towards humans because fuck those mortals. In the last example you get closest to racism, not exactly the same since they are different species but still close enough.

And there was prejudice also against other sentient species, some because of what they are, some because of what they do. So Orcs aren't welcome in human, dwarf or elven "towns", because of what they do (kill, rape, pillage and eat you).

Now back to the real world, European nobility used to want to look whiter, because the peasants worked in the sun and were tanned. Racism? Nope, classism.