Is racism towards dark skin people an outcome of colonization, or a question of class

[Minty]

Are agrarian societies the reason why skin colour is selected as the criteria for colonial racism?

Is racism towards dark skin people an outcome of colonization, or simply a question of class?

In ancient times, Asian cultures (and most cultures more or less in the globe) depended on agriculture. Those who were born into loaded families didn't need to cultivate in the rice paddies, or millet/wheat fields hence they didn’t spend all day underneath sun and their skin persisted as light-coloured. On the other hand, the "low-class" farmers who spent all day in the field acquired tanned skin and were looked down by the upper class.

What are the reasons that in the period of the epoch of colonization, the ideology of race centralized so much on skin colours, and what were the reasons that this was so easily acknowledged? Did it have something to do with agrarian societies?

The enquiry here is very subtlety: what is the mental backdrop for selecting skin colour as a racial indicant; why not select another indicant, like placement? Why did the light versus dark continuum add up as a racial indicant, but yet say the East versus West continuum didn't?

I don't mean to offend anyone but I think this is worth discussing.

[No-name]

It seems like a good question and a very interesting theory. I have seen in several different cultures- even within a group of people with similar skin color a preference for lighter skin.

[Minty]

It seems like a good question and a very interesting theory. I have seen in several different cultures- even within a group of people with similar skin color a preference for lighter skin.

In the west, the idea that being tan is aesthetic is very modern (20th century). Earlier, beaut was pale skin, for precisely the same rationality, European people utilized many different methods to attain even whiter skins (e.g. the usage of milk when they bathed, the fact that they wore white powders and makeup).

Many Asian cultures also prefer light skin people, there are many skin lightening products sold throughout Asia. Also most of the knockout celebrities you see in Asian media have pale skins.

I think there is a correlation-- it is one of those things that "seems" to be true and so it would be interesting to see if it actually has any basis and to explore why.

Yes I think so too.

[Sirius2b]

It seems like a good question and a very interesting theory. I have seen in several different cultures- even within a group of people with similar skin color a preference for lighter skin.

Then why are dark skinned people still dark?

If that preference exists in every time and place, there would be no dark skinned people around.

(Natural selection)

If you have "seen" it... it is because of modern and engraved racist visions prevalent in our times.

[Maciamo]

I think it is neither. It is not due to colonisation because many non-Black countries have been colonised, some Black countries haven't been colonises (e.g. Ethiopia), and racism/discrimination toward people of darker skin colour also exist within India and within East Asia.

I think that modern racism/intolerance is usually more socio-cultural than just based on skin colour. The Japanese discriminate against the Chinese or South-East Asians, because they are poorer and behave differently (=> different culture and different socio-economic condition). Some Western Europeans dislike or fear Eastern Europeans because they are poorer and they think they will steal their jobs. However there aren't really any cultural or racial issue. It's a case where it's purely economic, and it is probably the easiest kind of intolerance to manage and get rid of.

It is much harder when strong cultural or religious differences come into play, because it requires one group (normally the immigrant group) to give up part of whole of their culture/religion to adapt into the new society. Since the 2nd half of the 20th century, the tendency has been for people to fight for their right to be different, even if it causes social unrest. This is what has happened with immigrants to Europe. Too much government-sponsored tolerance and too many rights to be different have resulted in poor integration and immigrants always claiming more rights, even when natives would be denied the same rights (e.g. Muslims asking legal exceptions for them to sacrifice animals at home or wear religious symbols in public institutions in countries where that is prohibited).

[Minty]

I think it is neither. It is not due to colonisation because many non-Black countries have been colonised, some Black countries haven't been colonises (e.g. Ethiopia), and racism/discrimination toward people of darker skin colour also exist within India and within East Asia.

Well in East Asians' case it is probably class.

For example, somebody who has worked in University in Seoul told me that "the secretaries had to be almost brow-beaten into accepting a NZ-born Thai guy was a teacher and not a labourer working on campus."

I think that modern racism/intolerance is usually more socio-cultural than just based on skin colour. The Japanese discriminate against the Chinese or South-East Asians, because they are poorer and behave differently (=> different culture and different socio-economic condition).

Yes in modern days racism or discrimination have undergone changes. But don't you find that most of the higher, richer countries mostly consist of light skin people in comparison to poor countries? Even among wealthy countries within Europe, and countries like America and Australia, the black or aboriginals there are much poorer than the white people. In Taiwan's case the Taiwanese aboriginals are also darker than the Taiwanese Han and their income is lower.

Some Western Europeans dislike or fear Eastern Europeans because they are poorer and they think they will steal their jobs. However there aren't really any cultural or racial issue. It's a case where it's purely economic, and it is probably the easiest kind of intolerance to manage and get rid of.

Yes I agree it is not always the case that skin colour is the division between the rich and the poor, but there are lots of places on earth that there are racial, economic divisions between light and dark skin people.

It is much harder when strong cultural or religious differences come into play, because it requires one group (normally the immigrant group) to give up part of whole of their culture/religion to adapt into the new society. Since the 2nd half of the 20th century, the tendency has been for people to fight for their right to be different, even if it causes social unrest. This is what has happened with immigrants to Europe. Too much government-sponsored tolerance and too many rights to be different have resulted in poor integration and immigrants always claiming more rights, even when natives would be denied the same rights (e.g. Muslims asking legal exceptions for them to sacrifice animals at home or wear religious symbols in public institutions in countries where that is prohibited).

Yes religious and cultural differences definitely play an important role in tensions among different racial groups. But even in Europe, and other western countries today the word "Negro" is still used, which of course we know it's a racist word, and in Spanish it means black.

In the case in Malaysia the tensions between different racial groups also wrought through years of religious, political and economical favouritisms.

[Maciamo]

Yes in modern days racism or discrimination have undergone changes. But don't you find that most of the higher, richer countries mostly consist of light skin people in comparison to poor countries? Even among wealthy countries within Europe, and countries like America and Australia, the black or aboriginals there are much poorer than the white people. In Taiwan's case the Taiwanese aboriginals are also darker than the Taiwanese Han and their income is lower.

Let's not forget that differences in skin colours often mean significant difference in genes too. Genetical differences in humans are most visible in the shape of the head (even between family members) and facial traits. Some people have bigger noses, ears, eyes, foreheads, jaws... than others. Looking at the skull, some have bigger frontal lobes, other bigger oscipital lobes, etc. Every individual has a different skull and brain shape, and this is further accentuated by ethnic differences. As we know from observation, Black people (regardless of whether they live in Africa, Brazil, the Carribean or the USA) have a better sense of rythms, dance and are more spontaneous than non-black Africans. They are also physically stronger and have stronger body smell. It seems to me that East Asians (Mongoloids) have a more accute sense of touching, taste and smell, and are more supple, and a weaker body smell. These are examples of genetic differences.

It gets more complex when it comes to personality and intelligence though, as there are much more factors than genetics into account. But ir could be that some ethnic groups are more predisposed to working hard or making money or seek power or work in team or be individualistic or whatever, than others.

I would be interested to research the correlation between skin colour and personality. Scientifically, we know that different skin colours have different sensitivities to the sun, and that lighter skin is more sensitive. We also know that lighter skin (i.e. lower melanine level) increases the absorption of sunlight, vital for the creation of vitamin D and other metabolisms. Without sun, people just go crazy. People with dark skin have a better protection against sunburns and skin cancers, but those with fair skin are better adapted to places with little sunshine. One of the things I have been wondering is: do people with dark skin "feel less good" in northern countries ? Northern Europeans almost feel a visceral need to go to sunny places whenever they can (so many people go to sunny places during the winter holidays). If they don't they get depressed and might go crazy. Given that darker skin are more impermeable to sunlight, wouldn't it be logical that dark-skinned people feel even worse in the absence of sun than light-skinned people ? Could this partly (I insist on 'partly', as socio-cultural factors are more important) explain why people whose ethnic group originated in hot and sunny countries (and so having darker skin) tend to become more easily delinquents or criminals than others ? That's worth studying. It would make a good deterrent to immigration from the Tropics to higher latitudes.

[Minty]

Let's not forget that differences in skin colours often mean significant difference in genes too. Genetical differences in humans are most visible in the shape of the head (even between family members) and facial traits. Some people have bigger noses, ears, eyes, foreheads, jaws... than others. Looking at the skull, some have bigger frontal lobes, other bigger oscipital lobes, etc. Every individual has a different skull and brain shape, and this is further accentuated by ethnic differences.

(Not bashing Europeans here but...)The Europeans labelled anyone who didn't appear like them or performed things the way they did, uncivilised peoples, monkeys, ugly creatures...etc. And seemingly this perspective prevails to this day. This is in response to the question of racism other than skin colour.

As we know from observation, Black people (regardless of whether they live in Africa, Brazil, the Carribean or the USA) have a better sense of rythms, dance and are more spontaneous than non-black Africans. They are also physically stronger and have stronger body smell. It seems to me that East Asians (Mongoloids) have a more accute sense of touching, taste and smell, and are more supple, and a weaker body smell. These are examples of genetic differences.

It gets more complex when it comes to personality and intelligence though, as there are much more factors than genetics into account. But ir could be that some ethnic groups are more predisposed to working hard or making money or seek power or work in team or be individualistic or whatever, than others.
I would be interested to research the correlation between skin colour and personality. Scientifically, we know that different skin colours have different sensitivities to the sun, and that lighter skin is more sensitive. We also know that lighter skin (i.e. lower melanine level) increases the absorption of sunlight, vital for the creation of vitamin D and other metabolisms. Without sun, people just go crazy. People with dark skin have a better protection against sunburns and skin cancers, but those with fair skin are better adapted to places with little sunshine. One of the things I have been wondering is: do people with dark skin "feel less good" in northern countries ? Northern Europeans almost feel a visceral need to go to sunny places whenever they can (so many people go to sunny places during the winter holidays). If they don't they get depressed and might go crazy. Given that darker skin are more impermeable to sunlight, wouldn't it be logical that dark-skinned people feel even worse in the absence of sun than light-skinned people ? Could this partly (I insist on 'partly', as socio-cultural factors are more important) explain why people whose ethnic group originated in hot and sunny countries (and so having darker skin) tend to become more easily delinquents or criminals than others ? That's worth studying. It would make a good deterrent to immigration from the Tropics to higher latitudes.

You idea is brilliant, if you do look into this perhaps you can make a thread about this and we can discuss.

[Minty]

Did colonisation enforce the idea of dark skin people are of lower class?
Thraldom has done large amounts of scathe to peoples' views of black people. It is a fact that in Asia people are obsessed with wanting to look whiter like using the skin whitening products which are on sale in many places in Asia.

I used to have a Sino Malaysian who used this product and were in competition with me about who looked fairer but I always won because in my case it is genetics ands she�fs always very annoyed about it. :rolleyes: Silly competition, really...

Moreover the fact that blepharoplasty surgeries to look more Caucasoid looking are popular among East Asians, in particular Koreans who are born with 75 percent single eye lids while Chinese and Japanese are born with 50 percent single eye lids.

Lastly, long, long time ago in China there were dark skin Chinese heroes like Judge Bao for example, and since China was a closed society back then that meant they didn�ft have much contact with the west. So why now Chinese are so obsessed with looking fair, does it have something to do with the impact of colonisation that being white means superiority?

[Elizabeth]

What are the reasons that in the period of the epoch of colonization, the ideology of race centralized so much on skin colours, and what were the reasons that this was so easily acknowledged? Did it have something to do with agrarian societies?
The enquiry here is very subtlety: what is the mental backdrop for selecting skin colour as a racial indicant; why not select another indicant, like placement? Why did the light versus dark continuum add up as a racial indicant, but yet say the East versus West continuum didn't?
I don't mean to offend anyone but I think this is worth discussing.

I honestly don't quite understand the question since colonialism lasted over 500 years, spanned a range of motives, wealth and the accumulation of resources probably foremost, at least with the Americas. Plus, it's impossible to disentange race from class as virtually every non-European country while not necessarily black is natively non-white or darker skinned and agregrian hence poorer and extremely vulnerable to foreign invasion.

It would be interesting, though, to look at if and how in general lighter skinned has correlated with political and economic power in these countries even prior to contact with Europeans as well as how colonizers varied their treatment of indigenous captives according to race and class.

[Minty]

I honestly don't quite understand the question since colonialism lasted over 500 years, spanned a range of motives, wealth and the accumulation of resources probably foremost, at least with the Americas. Plus, it's impossible to disentange race from class as virtually every non-European country while not necessarily black is natively non-white or darker skinned and agregrian hence poorer and extremely vulnerable to foreign invasion.

I am thinking whether there is a correlation between skin colour and racism, and whether it is a product of colonization or class?

It would be interesting, though, to look at if and how in general lighter skinned has correlated with political and economic power in these countries even prior to contact with Europeans as well as how colonizers varied their treatment of indigenous captives according to race and class.

Yes that would be interesting to research upon.

[No-name]

I think there is a correlation-- it is one of those things that "seems" to be true and so it would be interesting to see if it actually has any basis and to explore why.

[Minty]

I think that modern racism/intolerance is usually more socio-cultural than just based on skin colour. The Japanese discriminate against the Chinese or South-East Asians, because they are poorer and behave differently (=> different culture and different socio-economic condition). Some Western Europeans dislike or fear Eastern Europeans because they are poorer and they think they will steal their jobs. However there aren't really any cultural or racial issue. It's a case where it's purely economic, and it is probably the easiest kind of intolerance to manage and get rid of.

Colonization destructs and substitutes linguistic communications, civilizations, communities and countries intead of amending them.

Plenty of whites are still profititing from thraldom today. There is no denying it. They have commercioal enterprises, estate, and income all originate from the slaves that constructed them. When thraldom was abolished whites didn't need to do much since things were already created for them. Black people by contrast had to commence from the bottom. People can never terminate more than 200 years of deficit in fewer than 100 years. By the law black and white may have equal rights, but that's not really the reality.
Slavery profits noone omit the slave owner. Blacks are not equal in white society to this day. They do have full legitimate rights, but they are not always do by equally, and still haven't level up with the whites.

African Imports--A Practical Solution--Maintaining the System: At the end of the 17th century, the emphasis on England's national economy shifted from acquiring natural resources (precious metals) to developing industrial areas. The need for a large cheap labor force at home impinged on the continual deportation of the poor Whites. The mercantilists argued for the retention of the mass population at home and for the extension of slaveprocurement. Thus, the West African coast offered the practical solution. In addition Europeans saw Africans as hardier more productive agricultural workers, particularly in the tropical zones, than either the European or Native American (E. Williams 14-16; R. Williams passim; Davidson 84-86; Rodney80-81).

A school of thought argues that the violence in the region is an aftermath of the analogous European theories of race that directed to the holocaust. These beliefs were yielded by John Hanning Speke. Not similar to the other mixed states of Africa, Rwandans were regarded by Europeans to be on the margin and in the middle of Blacks and the "more aristocratic" Hamites. Tutsis were perceived as Hamites and Hutus as lesser Bantus. This inbred racism was diverged upon independence when most of Hutus assume to consider the Tutsis as alien encroacher and not real Rwandans. Analogous variances have directed to violence in other sections of northeast Africa, most noteworthy in Sudan.

Many countries or ethnic groups are poor and struggling today are because of imperialism and colonialism.

[Sirius2b]

Are agrarian societies the reason why skin colour is selected as the criteria for colonial racism?

Is racism towards dark skin people an outcome of colonization, or simply a question of class?
....
What are the reasons that in the period of the epoch of colonization, the ideology of race centralized so much on skin colours, and what were the reasons that this was so easily acknowledged? Did it have something to do with agrarian societies?

It has to relate with (european) colonialism.

By the way, there were European "colonialism" against Europeans too... (England - Ireland, Russia - Caucasus)... and they were related also with ideologies of "racial superiority", not necessarily related with skin color.

But as the European colonialism moved to the more sunny parts of the Earth (South America, South East Asia, Africa)... the most evident difference was skin color.

The enquiry here is very subtlety: what is the mental backdrop for selecting skin colour as a racial indicant; why not select another indicant, like placement? Why did the light versus dark continuum add up as a racial indicant, but yet say the East versus West continuum didn't?

Civilization in Europe moved from South to North... and if you like, it even began with the Egyptians... The last being "civilized" (they had in reality their own civilization, but endulge me here) were precisely the Vikings and other Scandinavians...

However, the racist mentality from the colonial period of Europe, now infect the visions of "worthiness" and "europeaness" inside Europe itself!!

Now we have in this forum people from Iberia, Italy and Greece, struggling to demonstrate that "I am also white and European". They have even grown a complex about it.

"What goes around, comes around".

Regards.

[^ lynx ^]

Now we have in this forum people from Iberia, Italy and Greece, struggling to demonstrate that "I am also white and European". They have even grown a complex about it.

That's because Hollywood movies and american tv series have spread wrong archetypes about us. We are on our right to reveal ourselves at world as we are and not as americans show us, there's no complex about it just a self-determination spirit. And I don't know why this should bother anyone.

The problem comes everytime we said "we are not like mexicans / latin americans". Wherever or however we said this there are always mexicans who get hurt in their feelings and start to act like bitter and paranoic a**holes... why? Probably their traumas from the colonization times are still alive. Native americans always felt inferior to the european colonizers and that inferiority complex have apparently survived 200 years after the Latin American wars of Independence... truthly a sad thing.

Greetings.

[Cambrius (The Red)]

The bottom line is that, generally, few people take kindly to being depicted as something other than what they actually are, ethnically. Unfortunately, stereotypical images projected in exaggerated forms through mass media vehicles semiotically have an enduring (and potentially psychologically damaging) effect on a large number of ethnic groups, particularly in a world where an alarming number of people are grossly undereducated and lack cultural awareness.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with correcting misconceptions about your ethnicity. It can be considered as part of a process fundamental to identity formation and actualization. One can say that it is a primal propensity all of us have in our psyche. Certainly, if I'm Scottish I don't want to be confused with being Australian or American, etc. My self perception and ethnic identity images have been Scottish from birth and you expect others to understand that, at least in a basic way.

[Marianne]

.....if I'm Scottish I don't want to be confused with being Australian or American, etc. My self perception and ethnic identity images have been Scottish from birth and you expect others to understand that, at least in a basic way.

I bet that if you were Scottish your main concern would be that people don't consider you English

However I know what you mean. Japanese don't want to be considered Chinese by westerns who think that "all Asians look the same", Dutch don't like it when they are considered Germans, Greeks don't want to be confused as Bulgarians or Turkish and they don't want Skopjians to take away from them their Macedonian identity "just 'cause" , many English still think it's an insult to be called Irish-Scottish-Welsh and the later freak out when you call them English (I've learnt from my mistakes concerning this matter ) and Iberians don't want to be considered Latinos.

It's normal for human beings to think like that and it is has nothing to do with racism...

[^ lynx ^]

I bet that if you were Scottish your main concern would be that people don't consider you English

Afortuntely for Scots englishmen don't suffer from inferiority complex.

[Cambrius (The Red)]

I bet that if you were Scottish your main concern would be that people don't consider you English

However I know what you mean. Japanese don't want to be considered Chinese by westerns who think that "all Asians look the same", Dutch don't like it when they are considered Germans, Greeks don't want to be confused as Bulgarians or Turkish and they don't want Skopjians to take away from them their Macedonian identity "just 'cause" , many English still think it's an insult to be called Irish-Scottish-Welsh and the later freak out when you call them English (I've learnt from my mistakes concerning this matter ) and Iberians don't want to be considered Latinos.

It's normal for human beings to think like that and it is has nothing to do with racism...

Thank you, Marianne. Insightful comments as usual...

[^ lynx ^]

By the way no iberian, italian or greek posted in this thread until you did... Are you going to bump all the old threads related to this matter just to moaning about us?

[Sirius2b]

By the way no iberian, italian or greek posted in this thread until you did... Are you going to bump all the old threads related to this matter just to moaning about us?

Haven't we promised to ignore each other in these Forums...

Well... I guess now we have both broken that agreement.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That's because Hollywood movies and american tv series have spread wrong archetypes about us. We are on our right to reveal ourselves at world as we are and not as americans show us, there's no complex about it just a self-determination spirit. And I don't know why this should bother anyone.

I don't know if I could help you with your problem...

I don't know if I should recommend you, that before you go to bed, you recite 50 times a Mantra:

"I am descendant of Celts... I am decendant of Celts... "

... or plainly, recommend you to give up all that cr*p, stop bending the reality, and just live your life.

Which one do you think it will make you feel better, and less bitter? That is what Terapy is all about.

The problem comes everytime we said "we are not like mexicans / latin americans". Wherever or however we said this there are always mexicans who get hurt in their feelings and start to act like bitter and paranoic a**holes... why? Probably their traumas from the colonization times are still alive. Native americans always felt inferior to the european colonizers and that inferiority complex have apparently survived 200 years after the Latin American wars of Independence... truthly a sad thing.

Yes, there are stupid Mexicans that cannot live without thinking that their ancestors come "pure" from some little village in Valencia o Cataluña... the poor b*st*rds.

But you know, I am not one of them.

I do not feel inferior to the average European, much less the average Spaniard... Or, do you see me obsessed trying to "explain" how much "white" I am? No.

(If I am personally very "white" or very "dark" or something in between, you will never know, because it is a subject that does not worth 2 cents to me.)

Try again to pull that string about "inferiority complex": I guess that every time you see and Arab or a Turk, you feel that you hate him... and don't know why.

[^ lynx ^]

Wow, the guy just exploded. This mexican guy certainly has serious mental problems...



You guys aren't still able to accept your past and the fact that you are mostly mestizos and native americans??

What's the problem with just saying "mexicans and spaniards are cultural and ethnicallly different" then? Is that something offensive??? Why do you get angry then??? Does that bug you so much?? Really??

Seriously dude, seek for professional help. I pity you.

[Sirius2b]

What's the problem with just saying "mexicans and spaniards are cultural and ethnicallly different" then? Is that something offensive??? Why do you get angry then??? Does that bug you so much?? Really?? Seriously dude, seek for professional help. I pity you.

Is it not the 3rd time you answer that very question?

And EVERY time, I have answered: No.

(Denial of reality, is one of the unequivocal signs of a psychological problem. )

It is you, who have to look for some help. It is not just me who sees it... stop denying the reality, in the various ways you do.

Regards.

[Cambrius (The Red)]

Is it not the 3rd time you answer that very question?
And EVERY time, I have answered: No.
(Denial of reality, is one of the unequivocal signs of a psychological problem. )
It is you, who have to look for some help. It is not just me who sees it... stop denying the reality, in the various ways you do.
Regards.

Just what reality are you talking about, that Spaniards are completely different from Mexicans? That certainly IS reality, no question at all. No Iberian or other Southern European individual posting here is denying reality in any way. However, perhaps you are? Do you construct your own pseudo-realities about others for reasons of insecurity? Engage in a little introspection, it's therapeutic...

[Wilhelm]

This mexican guy has serious mental problems...