PDA

View Full Version : Race and Media


Number19
Aug 27th, 2012, 06:07 PM
Since I couldn't bring myself to continuing of the hijacking of the off-court photo thread to respond there:

Beyonce's looks are a-dime-a-dozen. Kelly Rowland's beauty runs rings around Beyonce's, but guess who they made the star. Yes, MADE.

I think Beyonce's starpower over Kelly's is more about charisma and being a better singer (not that the latter seems to matter much in pop music theses days.) Something however can definitely be said that her lighter skin, dying her hair lighter probably helped. Even latin singers Shakira and Jennifer Lopez have benefited from this in America's predominately white culture.

alright, go...

JN
Aug 27th, 2012, 06:21 PM
Since I couldn't bring myself to continuing of the hijacking of the off-court photo thread to respond there:



I think Beyonce's starpower over Kelly's is more about charisma and being a better singer (not that the latter seems to matter much in pop music theses days.) Something however can definitely be said that her lighter skin, dying her hair lighter probably helped. Even latin singers Shakira and Jennifer Lopez have benefited from this in America's predominately white culture.

alright, go...

I won't say much on this subject, because it's not one I'm particularly interested in, but...

Bey was groomed for the lead role and when others threatened to usurp it (LaToya & LaTavia) they were kicked out of the group.

NashaP
Aug 27th, 2012, 06:42 PM
Im surprised so many think Kelly is more beautiful than Beyonce. Beyonce's looks are definitely above average. Even without makeup, she looks stunning and you definitely won't see girls like her walking down the street. Kelly's looks are average at best.

moby
Aug 27th, 2012, 06:43 PM
Beyonce sings better and looks better, and has the machine behind her. :shrug:
This is independent of her skin colour.

StarDuvallGrant
Aug 27th, 2012, 07:32 PM
Im surprised so many think Kelly is more beautiful than Beyonce. Beyonce's looks are definitely above average. Even without makeup, she looks stunning and you definitely won't see girls like her walking down the street. Kelly's looks are average at best.

The idea that you would be surprised any number of people find Kelly more beautiful is a problem in itself. What also is the average beauty?

With the problematic posts that started this discussion in General Messages, there is beauty in Serena as there is in Maria and likewise with Kelly and Beyonce. Serena may not fit a European standard of beauty but that does not mean she's ugly and as with Kelly, this confusion on how anyone could find them pretty or even more attractive han someone else shows problems particularly with racial perception of beauty when the standaed is European let alone colorism within the black community. Being an Asian female, I've experienced and seen stuff that took me well into my college years to accept my own and others beauty so this is a serious issue. One which ticks me off when bullshit about looks is brought up by simplistic idiots.

Rolling-Thunder
Aug 27th, 2012, 08:36 PM
Since I couldn't bring myself to continuing of the hijacking of the off-court photo thread to respond there:

I think Beyonce's starpower over Kelly's is more about charisma and being a better singer (not that the latter seems to matter much in pop music theses days.) Something however can definitely be said that her lighter skin, dying her hair lighter probably helped. Even latin singers Shakira and Jennifer Lopez have benefited from this in America's predominately white culture.

alright, go...

This is not restricted to the USA. The same can be found in South America, where the fixation on the lighter complexion does benefit people like Shakira. Not that she would not be successful. But when you have a singer who is a light skinned latina, surrounded by all black/moreno/morena backup singers and dancers, then you clearly have an issue (though unspoken) that remains. The below still prevails in Hollywood and the music industry.

Brown paper bag test
The phrase “brown paper bag test” has traditionally been used by African Americans throughout the twentieth and twenty-first century with reference to a ritual once practiced by certain African-American sororities and fraternities who would not let anyone into the group whose skin tone was darker than a paper bag.[12] Also known as a paper bag party, these lighter-skinned social circles reflected an idea of exclusion and exclusiveness. The notion of the “paper bag” has carried a complex and obscure meaning in black communities for many decades.[12] The reason for the usage of the "paper bag" is because the color of the paper bag is considered to be the "center" marker of blackness that distinguishes “light skin” from “dark skin” on a continuum stretching infinitely from black to white.[12] Also, the brown paper bag is believed to act as a benchmark for certain levels of acceptance and inclusion.[12] Spike Lee's film School Daze satirized this practice at historically black colleges and universities.[13] Along with the "paper bag test," guidelines for acceptance among the lighter ranks included the "comb test" and “pencil test,” which tested the coarseness of one's hair, and the "flashlight test," which tested a person's profile to make sure their features measured up or were close enough to those of the Caucasian race.[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_based_on_skin_color

le bon vivant
Aug 27th, 2012, 09:17 PM
A serious discussion of this issue predicated on whether Beyonce is prettier than Kelly? :lol: No.

Can we have a real discussion about this and not that fluff? The thread should be titled "White Supremacy and its effects on standards of Beauty", not Race and Media.

kwilliams
Aug 27th, 2012, 10:25 PM
I always thought Kelly was by some measure the least attactive memeber of DC. I though Beyonce, Kelly, La Toya, La Tavia and Farrah were all more attractive. However, Kelly looks a lot better than she used to. Kelly might be darker but I'd say her features are a bit more European than Beyonce's.

Anyway, no one was going to be a bigger star than Beyonce. She had the drive, the confidence, the ego, much of the talent and she had the right people behind her. Plus she made sure she did the bulk of the singing. Remember how Michelle only got three lines to sing in "Emotion" but it was one of the songs that was supposed to show that they were a "group." I always loved Michelle. She had such an interesting voice, really quite unique. She was beautiful but in a simple, understated, girl-next-door kinda way. She always seemed very nice too. Although, I've since heard she's a bit ghetto and has been known to start fights in bars/clubs!

I loved Beyonce in the DC days but started to hate her because I couldn't ignore how the group was basically "hers."

ampers&
Aug 27th, 2012, 10:55 PM
A serious discussion of this issue predicated on whether Beyonce is prettier than Kelly? :lol: No.

Can we have a real discussion about this and not that fluff? The thread should be titled "White Supremacy and its effects on standards of Beauty", not Race and Media.
Took the words right out of my mouth. :lol: Shall we start with the multinational corporations that profit from a plethora of skin whitening products (including nipple and anus whitening creams) because of the prejudices against darker skinned people in countries across the world (because lighter skin is frequently seen as being the standard of beauty and even impacts job availability in countries like the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia)?

The Witch-king
Aug 28th, 2012, 04:20 AM
I always thought Kelly was by some measure the least attactive memeber of DC. I though Beyonce, Kelly, La Toya, La Tavia and Farrah were all more attractive. However, Kelly looks a lot better than she used to. Kelly might be darker but I'd say her features are a bit more European than Beyonce's.

Anyway, no one was going to be a bigger star than Beyonce. She had the drive, the confidence, the ego, much of the talent and she had the right people behind her. Plus she made sure she did the bulk of the singing. Remember how Michelle only got three lines to sing in "Emotion" but it was one of the songs that was supposed to show that they were a "group." I always loved Michelle. She had such an interesting voice, really quite unique. She was beautiful but in a simple, understated, girl-next-door kinda way. She always seemed very nice too. Although, I've since heard she's a bit ghetto and has been known to start fights in bars/clubs!

I loved Beyonce in the DC days but started to hate her because I couldn't ignore how the group was basically "hers."

:lol: at kelly 'looking better' over the years and having more european features - thats probably got something to do with the plastic surgery she got to look European

The Witch-king
Aug 28th, 2012, 04:23 AM
Took the words right out of my mouth. :lol: Shall we start with the multinational corporations that profit from a plethora of skin whitening products (including nipple and anus whitening creams) because of the prejudices against darker skinned people in countries across the world (because lighter skin is frequently seen as being the standard of beauty and even impacts job availability in countries like the Philippines, Thailand, and Indonesia)?
you say it like its brand new information. Did you just learn this with your newfound worldliness and consequent authority over all things THE PHILLiPINES

Wigglytuff
Aug 28th, 2012, 04:51 AM
racism is dead, it died when MLK walked on a bridge and freed the slaves. Now we have a socialist Kenya president who is not an American and if anyone mentions race they are a reverse racist (while racism is dead, reverse racism is alive and well.) #whattheyteachyouatfox

Did I miss anything?

JN
Aug 28th, 2012, 10:19 AM
racism is dead, it died when MLK walked on a bridge and freed the slaves. Now we have a socialist Kenya president who is not an American and if anyone mentions race they are a reverse racist (while racism is dead, reverse racism is alive and well.) #whattheyteachyouatfox

Did I miss anything?

:spit:
Knock. Knock. Knock. Mrs. Bachmann, are you in there? ;)

ampers&
Aug 28th, 2012, 12:05 PM
you say it like its brand new information. Did you just learn this with your newfound worldliness and consequent authority over all things THE PHILLiPINES
Do you have anything to add or will you continue trying to bait me into arguing with you like you do in every thread? :lol:

Wigglytuff
Aug 28th, 2012, 01:28 PM
:spit:
Knock. Knock. Knock. Mrs. Bachmann, are you in there? ;)

Lol!!! It's not just her, some of our friends from the politics thread share this view. Only they are dead serious :sad: :help: :sad:

kwilliams
Aug 28th, 2012, 03:58 PM
:lol: at kelly 'looking better' over the years and having more european features - thats probably got something to do with the plastic surgery she got to look European

I think she always looked more European compared to Beyonce. If she's had any work done then well done to her for keeping it simple and hiding it so well because I don't see much change. I think she looks better because she grew her hair!

JN
Aug 28th, 2012, 07:51 PM
Kelly could NEVER give you this:

http://cdn.24.co.za/files/Cms/General/d/1899/64aee8ee4852456da91e0943f3b377cd.jpg

No, Kelly couldn't, but at least 5 women in my sister's Zumba class could.

pla
Aug 28th, 2012, 10:26 PM
It must be the fact that I am European but I have a certain difficulty grasping the "white supremacy" thing started in the off-court pictures thread. I myself consider Serena to have a better-looking face than Maria, while both their bodies are not something I'd rate in the more positive spectrum of the female body-beauty, if this makes any sense :lol:

Anyway, I think beauty was constantly shown to be a thing of symmetry and to this everyone adds a certain expectation of expression, liveliness, charm.

The thing though is that many people just don't understand that we grow into liking features we are more used to see around us, so it is normal a European risks to find a European face more appealing than an Asian or African. A person of African decent will more likely find pleasing a face more typically African and so on. Of course, this is not a rule but some kind of a trend. I notice it with myself too and it's not because media told me so, nor it's a white supremacy feeling inside me or my culture.

With this I am NOT saying that media, past history and probably even personal complexes don't play a role. This too I have experienced. People in my country get fatter while they get richer as a whole. The newer generation tends to like more juicy bodies while my generation was more into slim women. And this is, to me, the consequence of both them being used to see fuller bodies AND the media constantly expressing messages and personal experiences like.. fuller women are sexier/fatter women are normal and slim=anorexia.

Sorry for the long post but it's an interesting subject. I don't know how it is in the States, I even find shocking how often people have to declare their ethnicity/race. I even saw a college form including a place to indicate one's ethnicity :eek:. So maybe this subject is indeed much more race-based in the USA. I certainly can see how the media showing mainly white models can influence the perception of beauty but I don't find truthful the white supremacy idea as an explanation.

kwilliams
Aug 28th, 2012, 10:44 PM
It must be the fact that I am European but I have a certain difficulty grasping the "white supremacy" thing started in the off-court pictures thread. I myself consider Serena to have a better-looking face than Maria, while both their bodies are not something I'd rate in the more positive spectrum of the female body-beauty, if this makes any sense :lol:

Anyway, I think beauty was constantly shown to be a thing of symmetry and to this everyone adds a certain expectation of expression, liveliness, charm.

The thing though is that many people just don't understand that we grow into liking features we are more used to see around us, so it is normal a European risks to find a European face more appealing than an Asian or African. A person of African decent will more likely find pleasing a face more typically African and so on. Of course, this is not a rule but some kind of a trend. I notice it with myself too and it's not because media told me so, nor it's a white supremacy feeling inside me or my culture.

With this I am NOT saying that media, past history and probably even personal complexes don't play a role. This too I have experienced. People in my country get fatter while they get richer as a whole. The newer generation tends to like more juicy bodies while my generation was more into slim women. And this is, to me, the consequence of both them being used to see fuller bodies AND the media constantly expressing messages and personal experiences like.. fuller women are sexier/fatter women are normal and slim=anorexia.

Sorry for the long post but it's an interesting subject. I don't know how it is in the States, I even find shocking how often people have to declare their ethnicity/race. I even saw a college form including a place to indicate one's ethnicity :eek:. So maybe this subject is indeed much more race-based in the USA. I certainly can see how the media showing mainly white models can influence the perception of beauty but I don't find truthful the white supremacy idea as an explanation.

That's a nice, balanced post. I agree with most of what you said. I think there have been studies showing that people tend to be attracted to people who look like them - not just in terms of race but actually people with similar features. That sounds a bit narcissistic and maybe even a little weird but apparently, in biological or genetic terms, it shows that you are well-suited to procreate together and that your offspring may even be less likely to suffer defects and could be healthier or more robust. This theory makes me wonder if the rule still applies to homosexuals, who can't procreate without some assistance! Do gay people still have that same kind of instinctual attraction to people that are similar to them?

I think Americans tend to see things in terms of ethnicity whereas Europeans tend to see things in terms of nationality. For me, anyone who speaks with an Irish accent is Irish, regardless of their ethnicity or even their legal status. An accent shows that you've grown up here or at least spent a significant amount of time here and become part of Irish society by engaging in it enough to have an accent!

As for stating your ethnicity on a college form, maybe it has to do with positive discrimination? I think some American colleges even have quotas that they try to fill because they want their study body to be X% Asian, Y% African-American, Z% Caucasian etc. Though, obviously, I'm not the best person to ask about this...but my bf has mentioned some things like this.

lefty24
Aug 29th, 2012, 04:06 AM
It must be the fact that I am European but I have a certain difficulty grasping the "white supremacy" thing started in the off-court pictures thread. I myself consider Serena to have a better-looking face than Maria, while both their bodies are not something I'd rate in the more positive spectrum of the female body-beauty, if this makes any sense :lol:

Anyway, I think beauty was constantly shown to be a thing of symmetry and to this everyone adds a certain expectation of expression, liveliness, charm.

The thing though is that many people just don't understand that we grow into liking features we are more used to see around us, so it is normal a European risks to find a European face more appealing than an Asian or African. A person of African decent will more likely find pleasing a face more typically African and so on. Of course, this is not a rule but some kind of a trend. I notice it with myself too and it's not because media told me so, nor it's a white supremacy feeling inside me or my culture.

With this I am NOT saying that media, past history and probably even personal complexes don't play a role. This too I have experienced. People in my country get fatter while they get richer as a whole. The newer generation tends to like more juicy bodies while my generation was more into slim women. And this is, to me, the consequence of both them being used to see fuller bodies AND the media constantly expressing messages and personal experiences like.. fuller women are sexier/fatter women are normal and slim=anorexia.

Sorry for the long post but it's an interesting subject. I don't know how it is in the States, I even find shocking how often people have to declare their ethnicity/race. I even saw a college form including a place to indicate one's ethnicity :eek:. So maybe this subject is indeed much more race-based in the USA. I certainly can see how the media showing mainly white models can influence the perception of beauty but I don't find truthful the white supremacy idea as an explanation.

yup that's all true. I remember reading in my psychology text book about. Very interesting. I wish I still had it.

le bon vivant
Aug 29th, 2012, 05:05 AM
It must be the fact that I am European but I have a certain difficulty grasping the "white supremacy" thing started in the off-court pictures thread. I myself consider Serena to have a better-looking face than Maria, while both their bodies are not something I'd rate in the more positive spectrum of the female body-beauty, if this makes any sense :lol:

Anyway, I think beauty was constantly shown to be a thing of symmetry and to this everyone adds a certain expectation of expression, liveliness, charm.

The thing though is that many people just don't understand that we grow into liking features we are more used to see around us, so it is normal a European risks to find a European face more appealing than an Asian or African. A person of African decent will more likely find pleasing a face more typically African and so on. Of course, this is not a rule but some kind of a trend. I notice it with myself too and it's not because media told me so, nor it's a white supremacy feeling inside me or my culture.
Well, you must know that white supremacy is not something that was created by White Americans. :lol: The whole idea that white people are superior to all others morally, intellectually, aesthetically, etc. came from Europe itself, during the Enlightenment.

In re: the bolded, this is simply not true for all human beings. Yes, for most people, what you find most attractive is based on cultural ideals. You are attracted to what you are enculturated to believe is attractive. But how does this explain West African and Indian people who bleach their skin to look white, and black children in the United States who believe that blacks are uglier and more dangerous than whites at only 3-4 years old?

FSdKy2q6pEY

As a European yes, you may find Europeans more attractive because you see them most often. But you must understand that all things that have a cultural basis operate within sets of power relations. Thus, as a white, European person, your cultural ideals are expressed the loudest and transmitted to people all across the world, because white Europeans have the bulk of the wealth and power in the world. Most white people take this for granted, and assume that their own cultural dispositions are natural for all human beings, but this is not true. White people see themselves and like their own features because their beauty is reinforced everywhere (in the media, etc.), non-white people do not get the same reinforcement.


That's a nice, balanced post. I agree with most of what you said. I think there have been studies showing that people tend to be attracted to people who look like them - not just in terms of race but actually people with similar features. That sounds a bit narcissistic and maybe even a little weird but apparently, in biological or genetic terms, it shows that you are well-suited to procreate together and that your offspring may even be less likely to suffer defects and could be healthier or more robust. This theory makes me wonder if the rule still applies to homosexuals, who can't procreate without some assistance! Do gay people still have that same kind of instinctual attraction to people that are similar to them?

I think Americans tend to see things in terms of ethnicity whereas Europeans tend to see things in terms of nationality. For me, anyone who speaks with an Irish accent is Irish, regardless of their ethnicity or even their legal status. An accent shows that you've grown up here or at least spent a significant amount of time here and become part of Irish society by engaging in it enough to have an accent!

As for stating your ethnicity on a college form, maybe it has to do with positive discrimination? I think some American colleges even have quotas that they try to fill because they want their study body to be X% Asian, Y% African-American, Z% Caucasian etc. Though, obviously, I'm not the best person to ask about this...but my bf has mentioned some things like this.Again, I must point out that you are committing the "common sense" fallacy, based on your own life and experiences. The natural human biological and sexual instinct is to look for sexual partners that will diversify their gene pool, not look for people who look just like them. This is why all human cultures have the incest taboo and most cultures have historically practiced partner sharing across different groups, because it increases the diversity of the gene pool and offspring will have shared characteristics of multiple genetic clusters, which increases offspring's ability to adapt to different environmental stresses. Throughout history, people who look extremely different have migrated, had sex with eachother and produced offspring, despite their different backgrounds. It was not until European scientific racism (white supremacy) that humans began to see themselves in rigidly, racial terms, and assign characteristics to those races which affects how attracted you are to individuals of different backgrounds.

SilverSlam
Aug 29th, 2012, 12:23 PM
Thought I'd just quickly share what I just saw on this Australia FoxSports SportsCentre type show, they talked about Stosur, and then Serena saying she was the favourite...

Then Sam Kekovich said that "Serena better watch out doing her gang dance or crib thing" and it was pretty :eek:

No doubt in my mind it was a racist comment.

le bon vivant
Aug 29th, 2012, 03:07 PM
Thought I'd just quickly share what I just saw on this Australia FoxSports SportsCentre type show, they talked about Stosur, and then Serena saying she was the favourite...

Then Sam Kekovich said that "Serena better watch out doing her gang dance or crib thing" and it was pretty :eek:

No doubt in my mind it was a racist comment.
Almost as bad as your comment about Serena eating watermelon and KFC.

moby
Aug 29th, 2012, 03:49 PM
Honestly though, and off-topic, who doesn't like watermelon and fried chicken? They are delicious.

lefty24
Aug 29th, 2012, 06:12 PM
Thought I'd just quickly share what I just saw on this Australia FoxSports SportsCentre type show, they talked about Stosur, and then Serena saying she was the favourite...

Then Sam Kekovich said that "Serena better watch out doing her gang dance or crib thing" and it was pretty :eek:

No doubt in my mind it was a racist comment.

I don't understand how people just say these things on national TV. :help:

Completely unesecary.
Honestly though, and off-topic, who doesn't like watermelon and fried chicken? They are delicious.

I just had friend chicken for the first time a couple months ago and it was amazing! Buffalo wings are the best though. :hearts:

I also love watermelon but I can't stand the sound of people eating it. Makes me want to shoot myself.

JN
Aug 29th, 2012, 06:38 PM
Honestly though, and off-topic, who doesn't like watermelon and fried chicken? They are delicious.

IKR. And mayonnaise on ribs.

lefty24
Aug 29th, 2012, 07:28 PM
IKR. And mayonnaise on ribs.

I've never really like mayonnaise.

In Russia they sell mayonnaise in a bag. So weird, but it's cool.

JN
Aug 29th, 2012, 08:35 PM
I've never really like mayonnaise.

In Russia they sell mayonnaise in a bag. So weird, but it's cool.

Mayonnaise has its uses, but on grilled and bbq'd meats isn't one of 'em. http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/31.gif

SilverSlam
Aug 29th, 2012, 09:28 PM
Almost as bad as your comment about Serena eating watermelon and KFC.

Well hey there Mr White Tears.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7ai4y41lO1rov8hj.gif

SilverSlam
Aug 29th, 2012, 09:29 PM
Oh and I, like most people, do love watermelon and KFC.

JN
Aug 29th, 2012, 09:42 PM
Oh and I, like most people, do love watermelon and KFC.

KFC is for white folks, if you wanna be down you've gotta get your hands greasy on some Harold's, Popeye's or Church's... especially Church's. http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z225/dongoliano/skully.gif

Wigglytuff
Aug 29th, 2012, 09:57 PM
Oh and I, like most people, do love watermelon and KFC.

It's a dog whistle that directly relates not only to a history of black minstrels

http://www.aolcdn.com/photogalleryassets/bv/505934/george-thatcher-minstrels-450a021909.jpg

But also to the violence and mass murder of black Americans it lead to

http://www.blackpast.org/files/blackpast_images/event_omaha_courthouse_lynching.jpg

It is not unlike saying to a Jewish person that they should get a yellow star lapel pin. Sure there is nothing wrong with stars, star pins of any color, but to say that to a Jewish person is not without context. And a claim of ignorance is not a excuse.

moby
Aug 29th, 2012, 10:07 PM
KFC is for white folks, if you wanna be down you've gotta get your hands greasy on some Harold's, Popeye's or Church's... especially Church's. http://i195.photobucket.com/albums/z225/dongoliano/skully.gif
Hate to say this, but Harold's is so overrated. :tape: Without the sauce, it's almost tasteless, and with the sauce it's still not that good but way too soggy.

JN
Aug 29th, 2012, 10:15 PM
Hate to say this, but Harold's is so overrated. :tape: Without the sauce, it's almost tasteless, and with the sauce it's still not that good but way too soggy.

Since Harold died, many of the restaurants have taken liberties with the recipe. I only go to two of 'em in the city, that have been around since I was a kid, for the exact reasons you state. My order is always, "salt and pepper, mild sauce on the side." ;)

moby
Aug 29th, 2012, 10:17 PM
Since Harold died, many of the restaurants have taken liberties with the recipe. I only go to 3 of 'em in the city that have been around since I was a kid, for the exact reasons you state. My order is always, "salt and pepper, mild sauce on the side." ;)

^ That's how I order too. Still, I only go now when I have a craving. :lol:
Maybe my local Harold's is not one of your 3.

JN
Aug 29th, 2012, 10:22 PM
^ That's how I order too. Still, I only go now when I have a craving. :lol:
Maybe my local Harold's is not one of your 3.

Yeah, they're everywhere now... kinda kills the mystique.

JN
Aug 29th, 2012, 10:31 PM
It's a dog whistle that directly relates not only to a history of black minstrels


But also to the violence and mass murder of black Americans it lead to


It is not unlike saying to a Jewish person that they should get a yellow star lapel pin. Sure there is nothing wrong with stars, star pins of any color, but to say that to a Jewish person is not without context. And a claim of ignorance is not a excuse.

Teach!

"You must spread some reputation around before....."

lefty24
Aug 29th, 2012, 10:32 PM
Yeah, they're everywhere now... kinda kills the mystique.

Hipster. ;)

kwilliams
Aug 29th, 2012, 11:20 PM
Again, I must point out that you are committing the "common sense" fallacy, based on your own life and experiences. The natural human biological and sexual instinct is to look for sexual partners that will diversify their gene pool, not look for people who look just like them. This is why all human cultures have the incest taboo and most cultures have historically practiced partner sharing across different groups, because it increases the diversity of the gene pool and offspring will have shared characteristics of multiple genetic clusters, which increases offspring's ability to adapt to different environmental stresses. Throughout history, people who look extremely different have migrated, had sex with eachother and produced offspring, despite their different backgrounds. It was not until European scientific racism (white supremacy) that humans began to see themselves in rigidly, racial terms, and assign characteristics to those races which affects how attracted you are to individuals of different backgrounds.

What do you mean? I said I've heard of studies stating such things. Why do you think that has to do with my own life or experiences?

"people who look extremely different have migrated, had sex with eachother and produced offspring"

:lol: You think I don't know this!!?

"It was not until European scientific racism (white supremacy) that humans began to see themselves in rigidly, racial terms, and assign characteristics to those races which affects how attracted you are to individuals of different backgrounds"

Hmmmm, I wonder if you're implying that I'm only attracted to my own kind and that I was advocating the ideas that I wrote about in my post. I was not, perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough in my post. I was merely relaying something that I heard in a documentary and found interesting. I'm Irish. I've never had sex or a relationship with an Irish person. I've never even had sex with a "white" person, unless you count Hispanic/Latino Americans. My boyfriend of 3.5 years is African American. I'm attracted to all kinds, though, and have been with non-Americans too! :lol:

Also, I'm fairly familiar with scientific racism as it was often employed very well by the British to depict Irish people are subhuman or animalistic and in need of "civilising". It made pillaging, exploitation, evictions, beatings, rapes, murders, executions and massacres all the easier for their forces to carry out. It made it easier for hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom were children, to be exported as slaves, especially during the Cromwellian period. It also made it easier to hugely increase the "exportation" of crops and livestock during the famine and at the same time demand that starving families complete a full day of backbreaking work in the soup kitchens before they would be given any sustenance. So, believe me, if I thought that that documentary was in any way rooted or influenced by such thinking, I would not have taken any interest in it. Again, I was not advocating the theory, just expressing how interesting I found it. To be honest, I think that human attraction is so complex that I think there is room for both ideas. Of course, looking for people quite different from you, would go along with the idea of spreading one's seed.

I think that people are probably attracted to people that resemble themselves but not those who necessarily look (just) like themselves. When I have lived abroad, or travelled to other countries I've often seen people and labelled them, "my French uncle," "my Chinese BFF," "my Brazilian neighbour," or "my Qatari former teacher" because they seemed to resemble people from my life - often not just in their looks but also in how they've carried themselves (if that means anything?) I've seen people like this so much, that I often look out for doubles when I go away. People like this would fit both theories - of choosing someone with some sense of familiarity but also some differences.

The documentary went on to describe how people are attracted to symmetry, especially facial symmetry, as this is apparently a sign of a person with good genes and an absence of visible and even non-visible defects. Scientists mapped thousands of people's faces (or something like that) and found that the most symmetrical face (and thus most "desirable" face) belonged to a half-Syrian, quarter-French, quarter-Irish woman. So, you see that even in the documentary they weren't necessarily advocating "sticking to your own kind." I myself find perfection can sometimes be a bit boring (though not always) Actually, I often think of Sharapova and think, there's nothing wrong with her face, some would say it's perfect but, on the other hand, there's not a lot that's striking about it. She's pretty but she's fairly plain and so I think near-perfection can sometimes be better but maybe that's because my face isn't perfectly symmetrical! I think that Syrian woman was on the cover of People. She was Syrian-American, I think.

JN
Aug 30th, 2012, 01:02 AM
Hipster. ;)

:confused:

lefty24
Aug 30th, 2012, 01:15 AM
:confused:

cause you know hipsters stop liking things after they get popular.
It was just a joke. :tears:

JN
Aug 30th, 2012, 01:23 AM
cause you know hipsters stop liking things after they get popular.
It was just a joke. :tears:

:lol:

No, I still like it, but unlike McDonald's you can't just go to any old Harold's and expect the same quality and taste. I did get all "hipster" when they started selling Coor's in Illinois. Before, we had to drive to Indiana for it. :lol:

le bon vivant
Aug 30th, 2012, 01:32 AM
Well hey there Mr White Tears.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7ai4y41lO1rov8hj.gifYou've actually been banned for being a vile, racist POS.
Meanwhile I am sitting here, perched. Not even a warning. :)

le bon vivant
Aug 30th, 2012, 01:46 AM
What do you mean? I said I've heard of studies stating such things. Why do you think that has to do with my own life or experiences?

"people who look extremely different have migrated, had sex with eachother and produced offspring"

:lol: You think I don't know this!!?

"It was not until European scientific racism (white supremacy) that humans began to see themselves in rigidly, racial terms, and assign characteristics to those races which affects how attracted you are to individuals of different backgrounds"

Hmmmm, I wonder if you're implying that I'm only attracted to my own kind and that I was advocating the ideas that I wrote about in my post. I was not, perhaps I didn't explain myself well enough in my post. I was merely relaying something that I heard in a documentary and found interesting. I'm Irish. I've never had sex or a relationship with an Irish person. I've never even had sex with a "white" person, unless you count Hispanic/Latino Americans. My boyfriend of 3.5 years is African American. I'm attracted to all kinds, though, and have been with non-Americans too! :lol:

Also, I'm fairly familiar with scientific racism as it was often employed very well by the British to depict Irish people are subhuman or animalistic and in need of "civilising". It made pillaging, exploitation, evictions, beatings, rapes, murders, executions and massacres all the easier for their forces to carry out. It made it easier for hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom were children, to be exported as slaves, especially during the Cromwellian period. It also made it easier to hugely increase the "exportation" of crops and livestock during the famine and at the same time demand that starving families complete a full day of backbreaking work in the soup kitchens before they would be given any sustenance. So, believe me, if I thought that that documentary was in any way rooted or influenced by such thinking, I would not have taken any interest in it. Again, I was not advocating the theory, just expressing how interesting I found it. To be honest, I think that human attraction is so complex that I think there is room for both ideas. Of course, looking for people quite different from you, would go along with the idea of spreading one's seed.

I think that people are probably attracted to people that resemble themselves but not those who necessarily look (just) like themselves. When I have lived abroad, or travelled to other countries I've often seen people and labelled them, "my French uncle," "my Chinese BFF," "my Brazilian neighbour," or "my Qatari former teacher" because they seemed to resemble people from my life - often not just in their looks but also in how they've carried themselves (if that means anything?) I've seen people like this so much, that I often look out for doubles when I go away. People like this would fit both theories - of choosing someone with some sense of familiarity but also some differences.

The documentary went on to describe how people are attracted to symmetry, especially facial symmetry, as this is apparently a sign of a person with good genes and an absence of visible and even non-visible defects. Scientists mapped thousands of people's faces (or something like that) and found that the most symmetrical face (and thus most "desirable" face) belonged to a half-Syrian, quarter-French, quarter-Irish woman. So, you see that even in the documentary they weren't necessarily advocating "sticking to your own kind." I myself find perfection can sometimes be a bit boring (though not always) Actually, I often think of Sharapova and think, there's nothing wrong with her face, some would say it's perfect but, on the other hand, there's not a lot that's striking about it. She's pretty but she's fairly plain and so I think near-perfection can sometimes be better but maybe that's because my face isn't perfectly symmetrical! I think that Syrian woman was on the cover of People. She was Syrian-American, I think.No, I wasn't talking about you specifically, kwilliams. :lol: Just the idea that sometimes ideas/theories can make "common sense" (based on the idea of collective life experiences) and that makes them appear compelling, even though they are not true. I have seen similar documentaries about the role of symmetry in attraction, but I often ask: who was polled in those studies? I know most psychology experiments in the US are conducted on white, male, middle-class American college students, which of course limits the level of generalizations one can extrapolate from the results, especially if one wants to speak in global, cross-cultural terms. Symmetry may be important, but who defines the parameters of where symmetry begins and ends? Which features must be symmetrical? If you have a wide, flat nose and/or a large, round butt, does that automatically make you asymmetrical? Based on what standards, a Western European ideal?

Are those tests measuring natural, human biological/psychological tendencies, or just the way that we have been enculturated by Western media to find certain features attractive? Things to consider.

SilverSlam
Aug 30th, 2012, 10:55 AM
You've actually been banned for being a vile, racist POS.
Meanwhile I am sitting here, perched. Not even a warning. :)

http://agent57.readyhosting.com/gifparty/no1curr.gif

le bon vivant
Aug 30th, 2012, 11:08 AM
Sure gal.

wta_zuperfann
Aug 30th, 2012, 01:18 PM
Why won't the controlled right wing media report this:


IqS2vzdUzKw&list=PL52C80301F5DEBEF1&index=1&feature=plpp_video



Well, now that the forum right wingers who love guns and hate government abuses have all the evidence they need to get that cop and his conspirators. When will you delusional right wingers go after them?

lefty24
Aug 30th, 2012, 04:55 PM
^do you ever post about tennis?

WowWow
Aug 30th, 2012, 05:31 PM
Well, you must know that white supremacy is not something that was created by White Americans. :lol: The whole idea that white people are superior to all others morally, intellectually, aesthetically, etc. came from Europe itself, during the Enlightenment.

In re: the bolded, this is simply not true for all human beings. Yes, for most people, what you find most attractive is based on cultural ideals. You are attracted to what you are enculturated to believe is attractive. But how does this explain West African and Indian people who bleach their skin to look white, and black children in the United States who believe that blacks are uglier and more dangerous than whites at only 3-4 years old?

FSdKy2q6pEY

As a European yes, you may find Europeans more attractive because you see them most often. But you must understand that all things that have a cultural basis operate within sets of power relations. Thus, as a white, European person, your cultural ideals are expressed the loudest and transmitted to people all across the world, because white Europeans have the bulk of the wealth and power in the world. Most white people take this for granted, and assume that their own cultural dispositions are natural for all human beings, but this is not true. White people see themselves and like their own features because their beauty is reinforced everywhere (in the media, etc.), non-white people do not get the same reinforcement.


Again, I must point out that you are committing the "common sense" fallacy, based on your own life and experiences. The natural human biological and sexual instinct is to look for sexual partners that will diversify their gene pool, not look for people who look just like them. This is why all human cultures have the incest taboo and most cultures have historically practiced partner sharing across different groups, because it increases the diversity of the gene pool and offspring will have shared characteristics of multiple genetic clusters, which increases offspring's ability to adapt to different environmental stresses. Throughout history, people who look extremely different have migrated, had sex with eachother and produced offspring, despite their different backgrounds. It was not until European scientific racism (white supremacy) that humans began to see themselves in rigidly, racial terms, and assign characteristics to those races which affects how attracted you are to individuals of different backgrounds.

Actually, the origins are much older and they go way back to Ancient Greece. The Western Civilization, as we know it, is mostly grounded in Greek Mythology. The perception of beauty, proportion, human relations, ethics etc. This notion was later reinforced by Romans, and it just kept rolling till it reached its peak in Nazi Germany.* So, yeah, it had centuries to be firmly established, and at this point it's very systematic and strong. For some people who were raised in closed societies, it's very hard to recognize it (regardless whether they're victims of oppression or oppressors themselves). This, of course, does not mean they shouldn't be reeducated.
The reeducation process is going to be long and challenging, but it's well worth it.

*Just to make it clear, I am talking about the evolution of white supremacy in Europe, which later had spread elsewhere.

Olórin
Aug 30th, 2012, 07:15 PM
Actually, the origins are much older and they go way back to Ancient Greece. The Western Civilization, as we know it, is mostly grounded in Greek Mythology. The perception of beauty, proportion, human relations, ethics etc. This notion was later reinforced by Romans, and it just kept rolling till it reached its peak in Nazi Germany.* So, yeah, it had centuries to be firmly established, and at this point it's very systematic and strong. For some people who were raised in closed societies, it's very hard to recognize it (regardless whether they're victims of oppression or oppressors themselves). This, of course, does not mean they shouldn't be reeducated.
The reeducation process is going to be long and challenging, but it's well worth it.

*Just to make it clear, I am talking about the evolution of white supremacy in Europe, which later had spread elsewhere.

Well the Ancient Greeks didn't see themselves as "White". So the idea of "White Supremacy" as it's being talked about in this thread doesn't really go back to Ancient Greece so much as the idea of racial supremacy in general; which as you pointed out is a huge factor in Ancient Greek culture, most noticeably the Greek vs. Persian races.

WowWow
Aug 30th, 2012, 07:49 PM
Well the Ancient Greeks didn't see themselves as "White". So the idea of "White Supremacy" as it's being talked about in this thread doesn't really go back to Ancient Greece so much as the idea of racial supremacy in general; which as you pointed out is a huge factor in Ancient Greek culture, most noticeably the Greek vs. Persian races.

You are right about that, I should have elaborated on how their art shows them as white and had established certain norms that are still dominant, etc. I'm just afraid this would drag us away from the subject which I think is very interesting and raises other questions about beauty norms today.

le bon vivant
Aug 30th, 2012, 09:15 PM
You are right about that, I should have elaborated on how their art shows them as white and had established certain norms that are still dominant, etc. I'm just afraid this would drag us away from the subject which I think is very interesting and raises other questions about beauty norms today.No problem, I'm glad you chimed in. But yeah Olorin is right, I was speaking directly to the scientific racism and white supremacy that propagated during the Enlightenment, became firmly entrenched during TransAtlantic Slavery/Colonialism/Imperialism, and still resonate globally today.

moby
Aug 30th, 2012, 09:41 PM
Hmm, I think the preference of light skin goes beyond the Enlightenment, or even Ancient Greece. There are too many strands of light skin preferences throughout history to attribute its existence to any one historical movement/event, although white superiority in its current incarnation is most strongly influenced by the Enlightenment/colonialism. But there has always been a history of it.

It all depends on which geographic region you look at. In India, the Indo-Aryan invasion pretty much established the superiority of the light skinned Aryans over the native dark-skinned Dravidians. Ditto, in China, the Chinese conquests of South-East Asian vassal states. Dark skin was also associated with hard labour in the fields, aka a lower social class.

If I wanted to get a little creative, I'd weave a narrative explaining this as a matter of circumstance. In prehistoric/historic times, people who lived in warmer climates tended to be smaller (Bergmann's rule), have darker skin (from the sun), and relied less on the development of technology for their survival. People in colder climates tended to be bigger, have lighter skin, and because of the harsher climates, required more technology and also a will for expansion to move into more arable land and better climates. When two civilisations were in conflict, the latter group likely has the advantage both in terms of physical size and technology, and this established cultural supremacy for the latter group. The distinction based on skin colour was collateral damage.

_______

Probably a good case study for this theory is the one example of indigenous white people suffering the same fate of discrimination. The native Ainu people of Japan (who look Caucasian) remain discriminated, even though most are effectively absorbed into the main population.

le bon vivant
Aug 30th, 2012, 10:59 PM
Hmm, I think the preference of light skin goes beyond the Enlightenment, or even Ancient Greece. There are too many strands of light skin preferences throughout history to attribute its existence to any one historical movement/event, although white superiority in its current incarnation is most strongly influenced by the Enlightenment/colonialism. But there has always been a history of it.

It all depends on which geographic region you look at. In India, the Indo-Aryan invasion pretty much established the superiority of the light skinned Aryans over the native dark-skinned Dravidians. Ditto, in China, the Chinese conquests of South-East Asian vassal states. Dark skin was also associated with hard labour in the fields, aka a lower social class.

If I wanted to get a little creative, I'd weave a narrative explaining this as a matter of circumstance. In prehistoric/historic times, people who lived in warmer climates tended to be smaller (Bergmann's rule), have darker skin (from the sun), and relied less on the development of technology for their survival. People in colder climates tended to be bigger, have lighter skin, and because of the harsher climates, required more technology and also a will for expansion to move into more arable land and better climates. When two civilisations were in conflict, the latter group likely has the advantage both in terms of physical size and technology, and this established cultural supremacy for the latter group. The distinction based on skin colour was collateral damage.

_______

Probably a good case study for this theory is the one example of indigenous white people suffering the same fate of discrimination. The native Ainu people of Japan (who look Caucasian) remain discriminated, even though most are effectively absorbed into the main population.You make valid points that are definitely true, vis-a-vis skin bleaching and South/Southeast Asian populations. I'm speaking primarily though to the experience of people of primarily West African descent and their engagement with white supremacy/colonialism, which is where European beauty ideals for blacks originated from.

And your creative example is not true though, from a historical or anthropological perspective. The burst in technology that occurred in the Upper Paleolithic was due to several factors, including exposure to/interbreeding with and intercultural exchange with Neanderthals, who were already producing Mousterian tools before homo sapiens (in the arid Levant :lol:), and exposure to other non-homo sapiens human groups such as the Denisovans. These are more plausible explanations for the burst of human symbolic behavior in Europe, not simply the fact that they had to adapt independently to a cold climate. The archaeological record is extremely scarce in Africa primarily because of the tropical conditions that disrupt the process of fossilization, but we are finding more and more evidence of the African antecedents to the symbolic culture explosions of Paleolithic Europe every year. However, there is no correlation between climate and stages/processes of cultural development. Also, just FYI there's no such thing as cultural supremacy either, thats a very Western European, ethnocentric notion of cultural development you just posited there. :lol: