Page 2 of 2 [ 25 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Eggman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,676

16 Nov 2009, 3:06 am

What if your white and nerdy?


_________________
Pwning the threads with my mad 1337 skillz.


willa
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 994
Location: between bannings.

16 Nov 2009, 2:22 pm

Eggman wrote:
What if your white and nerdy?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ2sI-8VOQw


Someone had to do it =P


_________________
?It's a sad thing not to have friends, but it is even sadder not to have enemies.? - El Che


sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 71
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

19 Nov 2009, 4:21 pm

White blight topic

I thought the thread title had to do with laundry, and wondered why it was in PPR.

The OP is airing his dirty stuff on the line. :P


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


Last edited by sartresue on 19 Nov 2009, 4:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

codarac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 780
Location: UK

19 Nov 2009, 4:22 pm

willa wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Would you like to elaborate upon this, it appears that you are insinuating that Christians are above slave ownership, and other inhumane acts. Which if you are this demonstrates a profound lack of historical knowledge.



Dont bother with this guy, this is his like 5th account in the last 2 months? I'm still kind of unsure though if he's trolling, or just wears his ignorance on his shirt like a badge of honor. He'll get himself banned in a week or so anyways. I admire his persistence though.


I think LeMesurier brings up some interesting issues, though perhaps in a faux-naive or provocative way.
I don't know what the intent is, but if it is to get people to question their received liberal wisdom, then I can understand the temptation to try such an approach, along with several others.



codarac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 780
Location: UK

19 Nov 2009, 5:04 pm

LeMesurier wrote:
I have travelled in Latin America. Everywhere I encountered this view: the whiter the skin (rich or poor doesn't matter), the higher your status.
What could be the explanation for this phenomenon?


Here is an article that offers a possible explanation for this phenomenon.
Quote:
Blondes Have Deeper Roots
By Steve Sailer – June 12, 2005
http://vdare.com/sailer/050612_blondes.htm

A couple of decades ago, I began noticing that the leading lady in a movie was almost always fairer-skinned than her leading man.
It appears filmmakers and their audiences subconsciously associate lightness of complexion with femininity. Yet, nobody ever seems to talk about it.
Medieval Europeans referred to women as "the fair sex," but in contemporary discourse, skin color is associated only with race, not with sex.

When the Internet came along in the 1990s, I discovered that an anthropologist at Université Laval in Quebec named Peter Frost had been researching for years this question of why actresses were so fair, and much else besides.

It turns out that this favoritism toward lighter skinned women is not an invention of Hollywood. …
In his foreword to Fair Women, Dark Men, U. of Washington sociologist Pierre L. van den Berghe, author of one of my favorite books, The Ethnic Phenomenon, summarizes:
"Although virtually all cultures express a marked preference for fair female skin, even those with little or no exposure to European imperialism, and even those whose members are heavily pigmented, many are indifferent to male pigmentation or even prefer men to be darker."
...
Frost reports that out of 51 different cultures in the anthropology profession's famous Human Relations Area Files, 44 cultures favored lighter complexions on either only women (30) or on both sexes (14). In only 3 cultures was fair skin preferred on men only, and in just 4 cultures was darker skin desired.
...
Lighter ladies were favored in many countries with little exposure to Western beauty standards, such as medieval Japan, Ethiopia, Aztec Mexico, and Moorish Spain, where the dominant culture was darker skinned than the conquered natives.
Frost discovered that the reason women were called "the fair sex" is because women are indeed fairer on average after puberty. He notes that 50 out of 54 anthropometric studies from around the world have shown that women's untanned skin, such as under the upper arm, reflects more light than men's. Women have more subcutaneous fat, which gives them a lighter look.
...
… the fairness fad has been growing in Africa as more affluent women get office jobs, leading to a rapid increase in the sales of often-dangerous whitening creams.
...
Frost also points out a corollary of this sexual selection for lightness:
"Since higher-ranking men marry the more attractive women, the upper classes tend to lighten in color with each passing generation, as in India."
...
This seems particularly true in Latin America, where the elites remain quite white-looking despite almost 500 years of intermarriage. The trick is that the most successful short, dark men often wed tall, blonde women and have more European-looking offspring, thus replenishing the caste system.


On the subject of the popularity skin-whitening products, there was a programme on in the UK recently about it. Predictably enough, they blamed it on the legacy of white racism. This sort of guilt-mongering drivel would be funny if it were not so relentless.

Quote:
A Euro Vision of Beauty?
Monday 02 November 2009
Dr Amina Mire

Since women of colour began using skin whitening products in response to racial oppression in eighteenth century America, unlike legal slavery, the trade has grown not died. Worse still is that what was once used to mask women of African origin desperate to pass in a white society that often deemed their natural skin ugly and unacceptable, it now provides a Venetian mask for all women of colour.


On the other hand, here is what life is like for people in Tanzania with abnormally fair skin:

Quote:
Living in fear: Tanzania's albinos
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7518049.stm
Page last updated at 18:15 GMT, Monday, 21 July 2008 19:15 UK

Twenty-five people with albinism have been murdered in Tanzania since March, a BBC investigation has found.

Albinos are targeted for body parts that are used in witchcraft, and killings continue despite government efforts to stamp out the grisly practice, the BBC's Karen Allen says.
Once, albinos used to seek shelter from the sun. Now they have gone into hiding simply to survive, after a series of killings linked to witchcraft.



codarac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 780
Location: UK

19 Nov 2009, 5:10 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
LeMesurier wrote:
Quote:
Yes, the locals told me that the slave owners often were jewish, btw.
this is BS, btw.


How do you know it's BS?

A black professor called Tony Martin wrote a book a few years back about Jewish involvement in slave trading in the Americas.
There is more info on this at http://www.blacksandjews.com/Welcome.html

Here is a quote (via http://www.blacksandjews.com/MarcLeeRaphael.html ) from the Jewish rabbi Marc Lee Raphael:

"Jews also took an active part in the Dutch colonial slave trade; indeed, the bylaws of the Recife and Mauricia congregations (1648) included an imposta (Jewish tax) of five soldos for each Negro slave a Brazilian Jew purchased from the West Indies Company. Slave auctions were postponed if they fell on a Jewish holiday. In Curacao in the seventeenth century, as well as in the British colonies of Barbados and Jamaica in the eighteenth century, Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique), British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated."



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Nov 2009, 6:14 pm

MissConstrue wrote:
I don't know but in the earlier days it was definitely prevalent. The reason for white being a sign of status back then was that most peasants labored outdoors. So those who weren't tanned by the sun were far more likely to have a higher status ie. not working under the sun all day.

Also white skin is more or less a cultural thing. There are other factors that have also attributed to a sign of wealth such as long nails, bound feet, a person's figure, facial paint, length of knecks, size of breasts, ideal facial features, and other factors ppl don't bother to ask because it is something almost subconscious in us. We tend to mimick what we see in our status oriented cultures.


Not having to work outdoors would indicate not having to, but another reason may be that the people who are born with darker skin are descendants of the natives while the people who are born with light skin are descendants of Spaniards. I don't know the situation entirely, but I remember there was a class distinction between even the first generation immigrants, who were higher status and considered citizens of Spain, and even the children of the immigrants who were not citizens. Probably the natives were valued less than even the children of the immigrants and conquerors.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

19 Nov 2009, 9:53 pm

Quote:
How do you know it's BS?

I am a local so I know that most people that had slaves were of Spanish origin and Catholic.


_________________
.


wesmontfan
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: Near Washington DC

01 Dec 2009, 10:00 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
I have it in my head that the darker skin comes mostly from the native tribes in those countries, while the lighter skin represents more colonial descendants. That the preference comes, as a result, from a connection to perceived status. I am not aware of any religious undertones; I've understood it to be about perceived ancestry (although, I guess, religious colonization was a part of that). A shame, really, when a descendent of a Mayan, for example, would be considered less desirable than a descendent from a Spanish conqueror.


Makes sense. Here in Australia families with aboriginal ancestry until very recently hushed it up as a shameful part of their heritage.


Thats basically it.
In Latin America Whites came as conquerors- male only armies. They married into the (often quite large) native population. So the population became mixed. The darker purely native people fell to the bottom.
The rare pure Europeans seized the top, the Mistizo (or mixed) settled in the middle. So skin color came to represent social status in gradient kind of way.

In the caribean the Indians died out and had to be replaced by African slaves- subsitiute black for Indian, and mulatto for mistizo in the above paragraph and the story is the same.

In Anglo America the White man came, not as a conqwueror, but as a population-replacer. The native were exterminated, or driven to the fringe. The whites settleed as whole families (rather than as one gender armies) with little racial mixing with the natives. So skin color came to be viewed in an a either-or way not in a gradiett way.

This carried over into attitudes towards african slaves.

The upshot is that in Latin America Obama would be viewed as "a mulatto", but during most of the history of the USA he would be classed as "just a plain old N-g-r" (all or nothing black or white you gotta be one or the other).

Not that one form of racism is better than the other, just that there are differences.