Quote from: HappyDaze;1092309Or, more accurately, very light-skinned Asian or European/Asian mixes. It's like K-pop bands with swords and prayer scrolls.

Take my avatar for example.  Looks pretty white.

Quote from: Shasarak;1092307If you look at the art everyone in Rokugan seems pretty white.

Because in China, Japan and Korea (and much of the rest of Asia), light skin is considered beautiful by most for both men and women. Even among these three, the range of skin tone is extremely broad. That these Asian cultures represent this as beautiful and in their games, manga and anime, it gave the illustrators something to mimic.

Quote from: Lynn;1092415Because in China, Japan and Korea (and much of the rest of Asia), light skin is considered beautiful by most for both men and women. Even among these three, the range of skin tone is extremely broad. That these Asian cultures represent this as beautiful and in their games, manga and anime, it gave the illustrators something to mimic.

It was considered a high status sign to have lighter skin, because the peasants worked under the sun. From there it became "beautiful". The same happens in India.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1092426It was considered a high status sign to have lighter skin, because the peasants worked under the sun. From there it became "beautiful". The same happens in India.

For that matter, when Athena wants to make Penelope look more beautiful, she makes her "whiter than freshly carved ivory".
One of Juno's stock attributives is "white-armed". And even Penelope's maids - house maids - had white skin according to Homer.
One would guess this is all for the same reason: high-status women in ancient Greece stayed secluded and did not get a tan.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1092426It was considered a high status sign to have lighter skin, because the peasants worked under the sun. From there it became "beautiful". The same happens in India.

Also of note is that, until food became so plentiful in first world countries that even the poor had enough to eat (and much of our labor force is now employed in more indoor sedentary occupations), being a bit plump was also considered more attractive as it was another sign of your wealth and status.

Now days the signs of wealth and status is to be tanned and lean because it implies you have enough free time to sunbathe/tan and to work out/buy healthier foods relative to the general population.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1092426It was considered a high status sign to have lighter skin, because the peasants worked under the sun. From there it became "beautiful". The same happens in India.

Yes, but also currently as well. Sometimes a tanned look came become trendy for a short time, but it is a rarity as compared to perceived beauty of unflawed, light complexion.

Quote from: Lynn;1092579Yes, but also currently as well. Sometimes a tanned look came become trendy for a short time, but it is a rarity as compared to perceived beauty of unflawed, light complexion.

After centuries of some cultural artifact being present in a particular culture it will keep on popping back maybe forever. This still fails to demonstrate racism, unless you think Indians (the true ones with a dot not a feather) are racist against themselves. They are a classicist culture, as was and still is most of Asia. Symbols of higher status will keep on being considered "better" be it a white, smooth and soft skin (even in the hands), or some garment.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1092594After centuries of some cultural artifact being present in a particular culture it will keep on popping back maybe forever. This still fails to demonstrate racism, unless you think Indians (the true ones with a dot not a feather) are racist against themselves. They are a classicist culture, as was and still is most of Asia. Symbols of higher status will keep on being considered "better" be it a white, smooth and soft skin (even in the hands), or some garment.

I'm not familiar enough with Legend of the Five Rings to have an opinion on that. However, traditional caste in India is hereditary - not just about culture or money. So I would say Indians can be racist against themselves (higher caste vs lower caste), just as Chinese can be racist against themselves (Han Chinese vs Uighur Chinese or others) or Americans can be racist against themselves (white Americans vs black Americans).

Quote from: jhkim;1092600I'm not familiar enough with Legend of the Five Rings to have an opinion on that. However, traditional caste in India is hereditary - not just about culture or money. So I would say Indians can be racist against themselves (higher caste vs lower caste), just as Chinese can be racist against themselves (Han Chinese vs Uighur Chinese or others) or Americans can be racist against themselves (white Americans vs black Americans).

If the discrimination is based on caste, not on race how the fuck can it be racist? And the part about the caste being hereditary IS cultural, unless you happen to think there's some biological component that prevents the castes from intermingling.

As for the Chinese, huge fucking country with lots of ethnicities, yes, of course there can be prejudice among different ethnicities.

In regards to American Whites vs American Blacks: American is the culture, not the race. So of course there can be racism there.

Now how does any of this demonstrate their wish to have a softer and lighter skin is somehow based on racism? Or are you just trying to move the goal post?

Quote from: jhkimI'm not familiar enough with Legend of the Five Rings to have an opinion on that. However, traditional caste in India is hereditary - not just about culture or money. So I would say Indians can be racist against themselves (higher caste vs lower caste), just as Chinese can be racist against themselves (Han Chinese vs Uighur Chinese or others) or Americans can be racist against themselves (white Americans vs black Americans).

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1092604If the discrimination is based on caste, not on race how the fuck can it be racist? And the part about the caste being hereditary IS cultural, unless you happen to think there's some biological component that prevents the castes from intermingling.

There is nothing biological that stops the castes from intermingling -- just as there is nothing biological that prevents whites from intermingling with blacks or Jews. Anti-miscegenation laws and customs are cultural constructs -- just like caste laws. But they are cultural laws *about* supposed hereditary traits of the grouping. Nearly everyone would say that anti-miscegenation laws are racist.

Mostly, this seems like a difference of nomenclature. The castes are not generally called races, but they are a different hereditary grouping with different features -- which is the same as race. They are similar and have lived in close proximity for a long time - but the same was true of, say, Aryans and Jews in Germany -- or Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. Some people don't call Hutu/Tutsi divisions racist either.

I don't want to get particularly hung up on a word. Do you feel there is an important difference between "cultural prejudice based on genetic group" and "racism"?

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1092604As for the Chinese, huge fucking country with lots of ethnicities, yes, of course there can be prejudice among different ethnicities.

In regards to American Whites vs American Blacks: American is the culture, not the race. So of course there can be racism there.

Now how does any of this demonstrate their wish to have a softer and lighter skin is somehow based on racism? Or are you just trying to move the goal post?

Wait, whose wish to have softer and lighter skin? People in India? I think people wanting to lighten their naturally-dark skin can definitely be based on racism. Here's an article about the use of skin bleaching cream in India, for example -

https://scroll.in/pulse/850030/skin-lightening-indias-obsession-that-is-becoming-a-medical-problem

As the article puts it,

QuoteMultinational cosmetics brands have found a lucrative market: global spending on skin lightening is projected to triple to US$31.2 billion by 2024, according to a report released in June 2017 by the research firm Global Industry Analysts.

The driving force, they say, is "the still rampant darker skin stigma and rigid cultural perception that correlates lighter skin tone with beauty and personal success".

"This is not bias. This is racism," says Sunil Bhatia, a professor of human development at Connecticut College. Bhatia has recently written in US News & World Report about "deep-rooted internalized racism and social hierarchies based on skin color".

In India, these were codified in the caste system, the ancient Hindu classification in which birth determined occupation and social stratum. At the top, Brahmins were priests and intellectuals. At the bottom, outcastes were confined to the least-desired jobs, such as latrine cleaners. Bhatia says caste may have been to do with more than occupation: the darker you looked, the lower your place in the social hierarchy.

Whether one wants to call it "racism" or not - the bias against people with naturally darker skin is stupid and wrong.

Quote from: jhkim;1092624There is nothing biological that stops the castes from intermingling -- just as there is nothing biological that prevents whites from intermingling with blacks or Jews. Anti-miscegenation laws and customs are cultural constructs -- just like caste laws. But they are cultural laws *about* supposed hereditary traits of the grouping. Nearly everyone would say that anti-miscegenation laws are racist.

Anti-miscegenation laws ARE racist, but you are conflating caste with race or ethnicity.

Quote from: jhkim;1092624Mostly, this seems like a difference of nomenclature. The castes are not generally called races, but they are a different hereditary grouping with different features -- which is the same as race. They are similar and have lived in close proximity for a long time - but the same was true of, say, Aryans and Jews in Germany -- or Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda. Some people don't call Hutu/Tutsi divisions racist either.

Castes aren't called races or ethnicities because they aren't, they are a social class system not based on your race or skin color(most of the time)  but on how much money your family had, it's like the aristocrat looking down his nose at the poor, middle class or new rich. "Aryans" (it has been proven they weren't) and Jews are two separate ethnic groups tho, so to call it racism is correct. You seem to think all prejudice and discrimination is race based, it isn't.

Quote from: jhkim;1092624I don't want to get particularly hung up on a word. Do you feel there is an important difference between "cultural prejudice based on genetic group" and "racism"?

Yep, you think all prejudice is ethnic or race based, when you have a caste system like we had here in México that was based on to what race your parents belonged this is a system based on racism, when the aztecs had a caste system based on social position it's not race based, ergo prejudice and discrimination yes, but not racism.

Quote from: jhkim;1092624Wait, whose wish to have softer and lighter skin? People in India? I think people wanting to lighten their naturally-dark skin can definitely be based on racism. Here's an article about the use of skin bleaching cream in India, for example -

https://scroll.in/pulse/850030/skin-lightening-indias-obsession-that-is-becoming-a-medical-problem

As the article puts it,


Whether one wants to call it "racism" or not - the bias against people with naturally darker skin is stupid and wrong.

LOL, you quoted me explaining from where this comes and yet here we are.

Lets see, the peasants worked under the sun, ergo their skin was darker, and also coarser because of their physical labor. The rich fucks didn't and when they went out they had servants with umbrellas protecting them from the sun, ergo their skin was lighter and softer for lack of physical labor.

So to have a lighter and softer skin became a symbol of social status and so desirable, it's not out of the Indians being racist against themselves, it's about the Indians being classist fucks who look down their nose to the poorer than they.

So again, prejudice and discrimination yes, racism no, because it's not about the race or the skin color (really) but about what it represents as a social and economical symbol.

There are many reasons people are prejudiced against one another, not always their race, it could be social, economical, tribal hatred for past wrongs, religious.

Hope this time I managed to explain to you that wanting a different skin color isn't always racist, but somehow I doubt you're really trying to understand but to score points in some woke game.

I wonder if there is evidence of India, China and Mexico having a "social preference" for lighter skinned people (aka, the concept of nobles being protected from the sun) BEFORE those people met Europeans.

Lets 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.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1092631I wonder if there is evidence of India, China and Mexico having a "social preference" for lighter skinned people (aka, the concept of nobles being protected from the sun) BEFORE those people met Europeans.

In México there's no such preference, in India and China yes, they did it before the first contact with Europeans. Just like the European nobility used to wear makeup to look whiter.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1092628Lets see, the peasants worked under the sun, ergo their skin was darker, and also coarser because of their physical labor. The rich fucks didn't and when they went out they had servants with umbrellas protecting them from the sun, ergo their skin was lighter and softer for lack of physical labor.

So to have a lighter and softer skin became a symbol of social status and so desirable, it's not out of the Indians being racist against themselves, it's about the Indians being classist fucks who look down their nose to the poorer than they.

So again, prejudice and discrimination yes, racism no, because it's not about the race or the skin color (really) but about what it represents as a social and economical symbol.

The 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.