White Privilege

[Danoff]

This is why the differentiation I made between habits/sociolisation and biology is as important. If it where properties engrained in us (biological) we wouldn't be able to change. When it's due to sociolisation it's not engrained in our dna to hald these biases and we can change these things for the better.

It is, to an extent, ingrained in our dna to hold biases. Social grouping, mating within the group, and xenophobia are all designed to help propagate a set of genes. You're predisposed to favor people that look like you because those people carry more of the genes that you carry. It's not entirely due to culture, some of it is just plain genetic preference designed by natural selection acting on genes. Genes which help themselves propagate (even in the bodies of other organisms) do better in the gene pool than genes that do not.

Also in our DNA is a propensity to bear many offspring, and abandon our partners once our offspring are near self-sufficiency before they abandon us so that we can go off and procreate more. And men and women have different genetic social propensities based on their particular biological processes.

Here are some things that are not encoded in our DNA:
- skydiving
- reacting calmly to being physically attacked
- refusing superstition in favor of logic and evidence
- choosing healthier food and regulating intake

We have particular biological impulses and predispositions, but modern civilization is a non-stop demonstration of our ability to overcome those propensities once we understand them. As Richard Dawkins said (who I am channeling in a big way in this post), we're the only species we know of that has the ability to recognize what our genes want us to do and disrupt those plans in favor of reason, logic, and intellectual thought.

 

[zzz_pt]

I already rephrased it and it wasnt meant to be rude. He was talking about family/friends who are not white. And I am actually 100% sure they would agree with my statement. I was just pointing out that subtle racism is part of the larger problem. Making a joke that asians cant drive, or black people like chicken and waffles, south east asians/south americans are a bit lazy are all examples of subtle racism. that doesnt mean that these people are full on racists. Sometimes the look on someones face when they meet a certain ethnicity already tells a lot. This is still racism. People who are not of the dominant ethnicity sometimes wont understand what I am talking about. On the flipside "white"people who work/live in for example China experience the exact same thing. White people are always called white ghosts and black people are called black ghosts. This is still racism. In former chinese/hongkong cinema the white/black people were almost always typecasted as villains. Recently though they seem to collobarate a lot more in the movie business and you see a lot less typecasting in chinese/hk cinema.

I was just encouraging a conversation about the topic with your own friends/family of a different ethnicity. That even though one thinks there is a lack of racism when you perceive it, there most probably still is. It just isnt as blatant to bother sharing or talking about.

As Hitchens used to say, a good joke always has to be at someone else's expense.

I laugh out loud when I listen to Dave Chappelle or Patrice O'Neal make jokes about white people. Do I think they're racists? Not for a second.

One thing is being racist and despising people from other races because you think your race is superior.

Another thing is making jokes based on stereotypes, which are usually a consequence of generalized behavior or preferences.

There's a fine line there but a line nonetheless.

 

[Imari]

I already rephrased it and it wasnt meant to be rude. He was talking about family/friends who are not white. And I am actually 100% sure they would agree with my statement.

You're still doing it. You're claiming to know his family and friends better than he does.

You've never even met them. Pull your head in.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I already rephrased it and it wasnt meant to be rude. He was talking about family/friends who are not white. And I am actually 100% sure they would agree with my statement. I was just pointing out that subtle racism is part of the larger problem. Making a joke that asians cant drive, or black people like chicken and waffles, south east asians/south americans are a bit lazy are all examples of subtle racism. that doesnt mean that these people are full on racists. Sometimes the look on someones face when they meet a certain ethnicity already tells a lot. This is still racism. People who are not of the dominant ethnicity sometimes wont understand what I am talking about. On the flipside "white"people who work/live in for example China experience the exact same thing. White people are always called white ghosts and black people are called black ghosts. This is still racism. In former chinese/hongkong cinema the white/black people were almost always typecasted as villains. Recently though they seem to collobarate a lot more in the movie business and you see a lot less typecasting in chinese/hk cinema.

I was just encouraging a conversation about the topic with your own friends/family of a different ethnicity. That even though one thinks there is a lack of racism when you perceive it, there most probably still is. It just isnt as blatant to bother sharing or talking about.

IMO your basic premise here is flawed. You're assuming that the things you see as evidence of racism that others will also see as evidence of racism. That isn't always the case. Not everyone see the world through the same lens. In particular, some people are more able to laugh at themselves and others without that laughter being mean or cruel or carrying any negative undertones whatsoever. I'll never forget the first time I went to Trinidad with my ex and her sister yelled out to her daughter who was downstairs, "Indi, watch out for the "N-word" bread man!!" My Canadian sensitivities went into shock so I asked her why she called him that. Her matter of fact answer was, "Because I hate the coolie bread man and I don't want her buying bread from him!". To Sav those were just words, they had no deeper meaning behind them but had I told that story today and only included the first line I'm sure a great many people would be yelling, "racist!!!". Some still might, but to me the context of the remarks changes the meaning entirely. She was a "coolie" herself so she held no animosity towards the coolie bread man other than she though he was scammer who sold stale bread. Her preference was to deal with the bread man of a different "race" even though she referred to him with an racial slur. For her, in Trinidad, the use of what we would generally perceive as a slur was merely a description of his skin colour or ethnicity to differentiate him from the bread man of a different skin colour or ethnicity.

 

[PocketZeven]

You're still doing it. You're claiming to know his family and friends better than he does.

You've never even met them. Pull your head in.

I am not claiming that at all. I am claiming that every minority encounters some form of racism (very small or passive too very aggresive) regulary. I dont claim I know his friend/family better then him. Dont mix that up!

IMO your basic premise here is flawed. You're assuming that the things you see as evidence of racism that others will also see as evidence of racism. That isn't always the case. Not everyone see the world through the same lens. In particular, some people are more able to laugh at themselves and others without that laughter being mean or cruel or carrying any negative undertones whatsoever. I'll never forget the first time I went to Trinidad with my ex and her sister yelled out to her daughter who was downstairs, "Indi, watch out for the "N-word" bread man!!" My Canadian sensitivities went into shock so I asked her why she called him that. Her matter of fact answer was, "Because I hate the coolie bread man and I don't want her buying bread from him!". To Sav those were just words, they had no deeper meaning behind them but had I told that story today and only included the first line I'm sure a great many people would be yelling, "racist!!!". Some still might, but to me the context of the remarks changes the meaning entirely. She was a "coolie" herself so she held no animosity towards the coolie bread man other than she though he was scammer who sold stale bread. Her preference was to deal with the bread man of a different "race" even though she referred to him with an racial slur. For her, in Trinidad, the use of what we would generally perceive as a slur was merely a description of his skin colour or ethnicity to differentiate him from the bread man of a different skin colour or ethnicity.

My premise, which I clarified, was that small acts of "racism" still objectively is racism, even if it isnt perceived as being "racist". The goal was to clarify that it is almost impossible to eradicate prejudice and "racism" in modern society. Even in a multicultural setting people get treated differently because of their ethnicity, religion etc. Like I said before there is almost no nuance in "racism". Similair to what @Danoff said that it is biological impulse to associate yourself with people who look similar and therefore (subconciously?) feel better then others.
Perhaps I should use the word discrimination?


edit: added reaction to @Johnnypenso

 

[Danoff]

IMO your basic premise here is flawed. You're assuming that the things you see as evidence of racism that others will also see as evidence of racism. That isn't always the case. Not everyone see the world through the same lens. In particular, some people are more able to laugh at themselves and others without that laughter being mean or cruel or carrying any negative undertones whatsoever. I'll never forget the first time I went to Trinidad with my ex and her sister yelled out to her daughter who was downstairs, "Indi, watch out for the "N-word" bread man!!" My Canadian sensitivities went into shock so I asked her why she called him that. Her matter of fact answer was, "Because I hate the coolie bread man and I don't want her buying bread from him!". To Sav those were just words, they had no deeper meaning behind them but had I told that story today and only included the first line I'm sure a great many people would be yelling, "racist!!!". Some still might, but to me the context of the remarks changes the meaning entirely. She was a "coolie" herself so she held no animosity towards the coolie bread man other than she though he was scammer who sold stale bread. Her preference was to deal with the bread man of a different "race" even though she referred to him with an racial slur. For her, in Trinidad, the use of what we would generally perceive as a slur was merely a description of his skin colour or ethnicity to differentiate him from the bread man of a different skin colour or ethnicity.

Yes and...

Any descriptive term can be an insult from someone who doesn't like the person they're talking about. The Little Mermaid (I have young kids so... sorry), has one of my favorite examples where Ursula calls Ariel "pretty" and it's intended as an insult. Obviously Ursula didn't mean to make fun of everyone who is pretty, she just didn't like Triton and his daughters. My main point here is... if pretty can be an insult, anything can. Calling someone "skinny" or "thick" or "normal" or "wild" or "odd" can be an insult or a compliment.

If someone calls someone else "four eyes", do you automatically expect that they hate all people wearing glasses? Not necessarily. Probably they just don't like that person and lazily picked and easy feature to spit at them. Like Ursula spitting the word "pretty".

I have heard the n-word used that way. And I have known people who would never use the n-word but who are racist none-the-less.

 

[DDastardly00]

In essence, what I really think this conversation boils down to is how we as a species perceive other people, and we absolutely do judge people based on appearance. But to limit it down to one facet of appearance, skin tone/color, is a bit disingenuous I think, and that is why this argument is flawed. For example I could bring up that Tall/skinny people generally are more well off financially, I could post article linking studies to back my point up, but would we really learn anything new? I doubt it, I'm sure we already suspect (as a group in this discussion) that better looking people are awarded with more opportunities and it wouldn't exactly be earth-shattering news.

Just for fun, here is one such article that links a few of these studies:

In the genetic lottery, slender women and tall men really do seem to have hit the jackpot, after a huge study found that height and weight are critical to future earnings. For every three inches taller a man is, he will earn on average £1,500 a year more. Likewise every extra stone costs a woman £1,500 a year.

It means that a six foot man is likely to earn an extra £70,000 over a working lifetime, compared to a colleague who is five foot nine inches. An overweight woman in contrast could see her lifetime earnings cut by more than £100,000 in comparison with a trim female.

Crucially, the findings are not based on education or childhood deprivation which are already known to affect earnings in later life. Scientists at Exeter University looked purely at the genetic information provided by nearly 120,000 people in the UK biobank and compared it to their salaries. Men who had taller genes and women who had slender genes consistently did better in life, regardless of their upbringing.

It is the first study that has managed to tease apart the effects of a poor start in life from inherited characteristics. It was previously thought that people who fared worse in life were short because they came from a deprived background and therefore had worse nutrition which stunted their growth and increased their risk of obesity.

Source: Telegraph article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...-slender-women-earn-more-throughout-life.html

Now generally I would take studies like this with a grain of salt, I would really need to have a look at the metrics used to form those conclusions, would want to know how sound they are, but I bet there is at least a bit of some underlying truth in those conclusions, however accurate they are....

 

[PocketZeven]

In essence, what I really think this conversation boils down to is how we as a species perceive other people, and we absolutely do judge people based on appearance. But to limit it down to one facet of appearance, skin tone/color, is a bit disingenuous I think, and that is why this argument is flawed. For example I could bring up that Tall/skinny people generally are more well off financially, I could post article linking studies to back my point up, but would we really learn anything new? I doubt it, I'm sure we already suspect (as a group in this discussion) that better looking people are awarded with more opportunities and it wouldn't exactly be earth-shattering news.

Just for fun, here is one such article that links a few of these studies:








Source: Telegraph article: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sc...-slender-women-earn-more-throughout-life.html

Now generally I would take studies like this with a grain of salt, I would really need to have a look at the metrics used to form those conclusions, would want to know how sound they are, but I bet there is at least a bit of some underlying truth in those conclusions, however accurate they are....

One can conclude a few things on the basis of this post:

• tall/skinny people are privileged
• tall/skinny people are more intelligent
• short/fat people are discriminated
• short/fat people are less intelligent

That is however not accurate. This is different from racism in the sence that (except for length and medical exceptions) A human can control his/her weight, but not their ethnicity. There probably is a connection between wealth and eating healthy and being poorer and eating unhealthy.

 

[DDastardly00]

One can conclude a few things on the basis of this post:

• tall/skinny people are privileged
• tall/skinny people are more intelligent
• short/fat people are discriminated
• short/fat people are less intelligent

That is however not accurate. This is different from racism in the sence that (except for length and medical exceptions) A human can control his/her weight, but not their ethnicity. There probably is a connection between wealth and eating healthy and being poorer and eating unhealthy.

Short people can't control their height though, so how is that part different?

 

[Danoff]

That is however not accurate. This is different from racism in the sence that (except for length and medical exceptions) A human can control his/her weight, but not their ethnicity. There probably is a connection between wealth and eating healthy and being poorer and eating unhealthy.

But not their height, and not their attractiveness. People are judged on all kinds of things, including how long their legs are, how far apart their eyes are, and whether their face has a "friendly" look to it, whether their handshake is deemed sufficient... etc.

People profile naturally.

 

[PocketZeven]

Short people can't control their height though, so how is that part different?

I already wrote that in the parentheses. My reaction was based on the quoted post mentioning both weight and height were critical and not individually. It did not mention how a tall/fat person or short/skinny person do. And you cant argue with me you can not control weight?

 

[Exorcet]

They except it for what it is. Ignorance. Most of the time people dont even realise when they are hurtfull or racist. You do have to remember being a little racist is still racist. I still regularly hear something similar to ching, cheng chong behind my back. I fully understand they think they are being funny and dont mean any real harm, but it still is racist.

Even when the subject of racism is brought up directly, I don't hear many complaints. People I know have been involved in incidents involving discrimination but so far no one has faced a problem so common that it impacts daily life.

Using stereotypical speech patterns is something that might rightly be considered racist, but it's the kind of thing that I feel is typically heavily frowned upon. If I were to hear it regularly out in the open, I'd be surprised.

Making a joke that asians cant drive, or black people like chicken and waffles, south east asians/south americans are a bit lazy are all examples of subtle racism.

What about when the person making the joke is of the race being poked fun of? If it's a joke and everyone understands that it's not racist. Obviously you shouldn't go around poking fun at people you don't really know because then it might be taken seriously, but again I feel like that is common cultural knowledge. No one really does it unless they're totally clueless socially.

People who are not of the dominant ethnicity sometimes wont understand what I am talking about.

I don't think it matters that much what race you happen to be. If one group is treated differently than another, that shouldn't be hard to notice.

I was just encouraging a conversation about the topic with your own friends/family of a different ethnicity. That even though one thinks there is a lack of racism when you perceive it, there most probably still is. It just isnt as blatant to bother sharing or talking about.

I'm not trying to imply that not seeing an issue means it's not there. I'm trying to figure out why it's so hard to find and look for ways to actually find it. I won't argue that racism doesn't exist. It also make sense for minorities to be more vulnerable to it. However if it's so common that it impacts 90% (?) or minority member lives, I can only wonder why it's so hard to find in everyday life.

A human can control his/her weight, but not their ethnicity. There probably is a connection between wealth and eating healthy and being poorer and eating unhealthy.

Weight is the easier to control than height or race, but there is still a genetic component. How well you're able to exert control over your eating habits/urges and what your body does with what you eat isn't necessarily under your control. Not to mention body shape, some people are just naturally larger than others, even in the same family.

 

[PocketZeven]

Even when the subject of racism is brought up directly, I don't hear many complaints. People I know have been involved in incidents involving discrimination but so far no one has faced a problem so common that it impacts daily life.

Using stereotypical speech patterns is something that might rightly be considered racist, but it's the kind of thing that I feel is typically heavily frowned upon. If I were to hear it regularly out in the open, I'd be surprised.


What about when the person making the joke is of the race being poked fun of? If it's a joke and everyone understands that it's not racist. Obviously you shouldn't go around poking fun at people you don't really know because then it might be taken seriously, but again I feel like that is common cultural knowledge. No one really does it unless they're totally clueless socially.


I don't think it matters that much what race you happen to be. If one group is treated differently than another, that shouldn't be hard to notice.




I'm not trying to imply that not seeing an issue means it's not there. I'm trying to figure out why it's so hard to find and look for ways to actually find it. I won't argue that racism doesn't exist. It also make sense for minorities to be more vulnerable to it. However if it's so common that it impacts 90% (?) or minority member lives, I can only wonder why it's so hard to find in everyday life.


Weight is the easier to control than height or race, but there is still a genetic component. How well you're able to exert control over your eating habits/urges and what your body does with what you eat isn't necessarily under your control. Not to mention body shape, some people are just naturally larger than others, even in the same family.

If the joke is racist then it still is racist (even if the joke is made by the person of that same ethnicity). I am not judging at all just explaining there is no obvious solution. Even I make "racist"comments or jokes once in a while. I wasnt stating it impacts my or others life it is just always there. I was primarily reacting to someone who was asking for a solution. It is also a thin line to cross sometimes going from for example "yo bitch" to a good friend to "yo bitch" to insult someone. and like @Danoff stated it is all about intent.

I wrote in parentheses that some people cant control weight medically already. The post also doesnt consider the ethnicity of the tall/slender or shoirt/skinny person. I was just stating it is different kind of discrimination compared to racis.

 

[Danoff]

I was just stating it is different kind of discrimination compared to racis.

In what way is the "kind" of discrimination meaningfully different?

 

[PocketZeven]

In what way is the "kind" of discrimination meaningfully different?

One cant control ones ethnicity. A redneck can change its appearance, A jew can convert, A fatty can workout/diet etc. But you cant change your skincolour. That is what I meant with different kind of discrimination.

 

[DDastardly00]

I already wrote that in the parentheses. My reaction was based on the quoted post mentioning both weight and height were critical and not individually. It did not mention how a tall/fat person or short/skinny person do. And you cant argue with me you can not control weight?

Actually I can argue that one. I work with someone who has Diabetes who cannot readily control her weight, she exercises regularly and eats healthy too. For some people, controlling weight, better yet losing weight, are much harder than it is for others. There are also people with other numerous medical conditions that prevent or severely limit them from exercise, thus making controlling weight much harder. A good number of these medical conditions are hereditary too, just like skin tone, just like height, just like general attractiveness and so on. Life isn't fair, it never has been and it probably never will be. One walk through the Seattle Children's Cancer Wing and seeing a five year old dying from cancer (which I have done) will lead you to that conclusion very quickly. If you're healthy, may as well consider yourself privileged too.

 

[Danoff]

One cant control ones ethnicity. A redneck can change its appearance, A jew can convert, A fatty can workout/diet etc. But you cant change your skincolour. That is what I meant with different kind of discrimination.

So you're agreeing that discriminating between people based on attractiveness, height, eye placement, chin shape, jawline, hair color, wrinkles, boob size, etc. etc. is not meaningfully different than racism?

Also, just FYI, a lot of things are within one's control:

 

[PocketZeven]

Actually I can argue that one. I work with someone who has Diabetes who cannot readily control her weight, she exercises regularly and eats healthy too. For some people, controlling weight, better yet losing weight, are much harder than it is for others. There are also people with other numerous medical conditions that prevent or severely limit them from exercise, thus making controlling weight much harder. A good number of these medical conditions are hereditary too, just like skin tone, just like height, just like general attractiveness and so on. Life isn't fair, it never has been and it probably never will be. One walk through the Seattle Children's Cancer Wing and seeing a five year old dying from cancer (which I have done) will lead you to that conclusion very quickly. If you're healthy, may as well consider yourself privileged too.

I can argue that one as well. In some asian countries being more fat is a sign of wealth. Being skinny is a sign of poverty. My point was that this kind of discrimination you were alluding to is different compared to racism. I am not saying better or worse... Just different.

So you're agreeing that discriminating between people based on attractiveness, height, eye placement, chin shape, jawline, hair color, wrinkles, boob size, etc. etc. is not meaningfully different than racism?

Also, just FYI, a lot of things are within one's control:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I was not stating it is meaningfully a better or worse kind of discrimination. I only was trying to state it is different. One is judged not by his/her attractiveness but solely because of his ethnicity or race (for lack of better word). That person might be beyonce or Rihanna and still be discriminated, because of their ethnicity. One can argue if they are attractive or not based on attractiveness, height, eye placement, chin shape, jawline, hair color, wrinkles, boob size, etc. etc. Also racism is often linked to certain stereotypes. But again i was not saying one is better or worse then the other!

It is well recorded MJ had a skindisease but good try

 

[DDastardly00]

I can argue that one as well. In some asian countries being more fat is a sign of wealth. Being skinny is a sign of poverty. My point was that this kind of discrimination you were alluding to is different compared to racism. I am not saying better or worse... Just different.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I was not stating it is meaningfully a better or worse kind of discrimination. I only was trying to state it is different. One is judged not by his/her attractiveness but solely because of his ethnicity or race (for lack of better word). That person might be beyonce or Rihanna and still be discriminated, because of their ethnicity. One can argue if they are attractive or not based on attractiveness, height, eye placement, chin shape, jawline, hair color, wrinkles, boob size, etc. etc. Also racism is often linked to certain stereotypes. But again i was not saying one is better or worse then the other!

It is well recorded MJ had a skindisease but good try

This is correct. MJ had Vitiligo, which causes skin pigmentation loss (in addition to a chronic Lupus condition which also can cause depigmentation). He was hit double.

 

[Danoff]

I can argue that one as well. In some asian countries being more fat is a sign of wealth. Being skinny is a sign of poverty. My point was that this kind of discrimination you were alluding to is different compared to racism. I am not saying better or worse... Just different.


Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I was not stating it is meaningfully a better or worse kind of discrimination. I only was trying to state it is different. One is judged not by his/her attractiveness but solely because of his ethnicity or race (for lack of better word). That person might be beyonce or Rihanna and still be discriminated, because of their ethnicity. One can argue if they are attractive or not based on attractiveness, height, eye placement, chin shape, jawline, hair color, wrinkles, boob size, etc. etc. Also racism is often linked to certain stereotypes. But again i was not saying one is better or worse then the other!

Beauty is at least similar to racial bias if we're just analyzing average wages (which has its own pitfalls). So if we're talking appearance-based discrimination, it's at least as big an issue. I'd argue from a quality of life standpoint, it's a bigger impact overall.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mart...re-money-but-its-not-all-roses_b_8203894.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_wage_gap_in_the_United_States

It is well recorded MJ had a skindisease but good try

And by "skin disease" you mean he didn't like the color of his skin (or the shape of his nose)?

 

[UKMikey]

And by "skin disease" you mean he didn't like the color of his skin (or the shape of his nose)?

It means he had vitiligo and bleached his skin to even out his skin colour.

The health risks alone mean it's not really practical as a way for black people to turn themselves into white people en masse to escape prejudice, and I don't think that would work, any more than white people would expect to experience white-on-black racism just because they tanned their skin.

 

[PocketZeven]

Beauty is at least similar to racial bias if we're just analyzing average wages (which has its own pitfalls). So if we're talking appearance-based discrimination, it's at least as big an issue. I'd argue from a quality of life standpoint, it's a bigger impact overall.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/mart...re-money-but-its-not-all-roses_b_8203894.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_wage_gap_in_the_United_States




And by "skin disease" you mean he didn't like the color of his skin (or the shape of his nose)?

Beauty discrimination is in some sence similair, but you dont have any Ugly supremacy groups or beauty supremacy groups. But in the sense of the topic of "white privilege" I agree with you that it has similarities concerning wage gaps and differences and is based on the same "kind" of discrimination.

There were rumors he bleached his skin, it was later confirmed he had a rare skindisorder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson#Skin_color

 

[zzz_pt]

Beauty discrimination is in some sence similair, but you dont have any Ugly supremacy groups or beauty supremacy groups. But in the sense of the topic of "white privilege" I agree with you that it has similarities concerning wage gaps and differences and is based on the same "kind" of discrimination.

There were rumors he bleached his skin, it was later confirmed he had a rare skindisorder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson#Skin_color

You don't see "ugly supremacy" groups because never in the History of the universe people (good looking and non good looking) appreciated ugliness. And if that never happened, it's only natural no one ever tried to form an extremist group claiming superiority based on that characteristic.

The same doesn't happen with clear or pale skin. That has been a symbol of beauty / supernatural in a lot of cultures around the world and throughout the ages. Sometimes ugly people with pale skin were considered "superior" or "blessed" just because of that. Other times, they were killed because of that too. Albino people are killed for their body parts in some regions of Africa because some people think they're blessed / cursed.

I have no idea as to why this [pale skin being regarded as something "better"] happened in the first place but I think it could be related to how people lived (slaves and poor classes worked bellow the sun and outside so they had tanned and darker skin tones - even if born white - while tribe leaders, princes, kings, were mostly inside their tents, palaces and castles, always protected from the sun). This is obviously complete speculation from my part. No one is to blame for the fact that pale skin gets darker when exposed to direct sunlight and that throughout History, most people (white people included) had to live and work under the sun in order to survive.

I think in some parts of China women hide their skin from direct sunlight so they stay as pale as possible. And they're not Caucasian. But pale skin is still seen as a symbol of beauty.

 

[Danoff]

It means he had vitiligo and bleached his skin to even out his skin colour.

That's the story but...

There were rumors he bleached his skin, it was later confirmed he had a rare skindisorder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson#Skin_color

...from your link it kinda looks like he was just bleaching his skin and changing his nose because he had issues with his appearance.

I'm in no way saying that black people should or even could en mass go bleaching their skin. I'm saying that a lot is within one's control when it comes to physical appearance, and gave a drastic example of someone who clearly had body issues and went from being a black man to being a female skeleton.

Beauty discrimination is in some sence similair, but you dont have any Ugly supremacy groups or beauty supremacy groups. But in the sense of the topic of "white privilege" I agree with you that it has similarities concerning wage gaps and differences and is based on the same "kind" of discrimination.

You don't have ugly supremacy groups because nobody is worried about ugly people taking over or turning the tables. Beautiful people are so comfortable and confident that beauty will continue to be one of the most important physical attributes someone can have, that they haven't felt the need to militarize against the "competition". Once again, that only makes it an even bigger more fundamental issue than racism.

This is pretty much what every other post of mine in this thread boils down to - racism is one small facet of overall profiling, and it shouldn't be made in to the most important issue, because it really is just one of many many factors in how and why people mistreat each other. The other post (out of the every other post) is usually directed to how people are tripping over language.

 

[PocketZeven]

You don't see "ugly supremacy" groups because never in the History of the universe people (good looking and non good looking) appreciated ugliness. And if that never happened, it's only natural no one ever tried to form an extremist group claiming superiority based on that characteristic.

The same doesn't happen with clear or pale skin. That has been a symbol of beauty / supernatural in a lot of cultures around the world and throughout the ages. Sometimes ugly people with pale skin were considered "superior" or "blessed" just because of that. Other times, they were killed because of that too. Albino people are killed for their body parts in some regions of Africa because some people think they're blessed / cursed.

I have no idea as to why this [pale skin being regarded as something "better"] happened in the first place but I think it could be related to how people lived (slaves and poor classes worked bellow the sun and outside so they had tanned and darker skin tones - even if born white - while tribe leaders, princes, kings, were mostly inside their tents, palaces and castles, always protected from the sun). This is obviously complete speculation from my part. No one is to blame for the fact that pale skin gets darker when exposed to direct sunlight and that throughout History, most people (white people included) had to live and work under the sun in order to survive.

I think in some parts of China women hide their skin from direct sunlight so they stay as pale as possible. And they're not Caucasian. But pale skin is still seen as a symbol of beauty.

Yeah its ironic. In the western world it is often the opposite, if you are pale you are often seen as someone who doesnt come outside a lot or not very wealthy. In the west people strive for a perfect brown tan and people of wealth have a tan because they possibly live in a warm country.

 

[Danoff]

It means he had vitiligo and bleached his skin to even out his skin colour.

There were rumors he bleached his skin, it was later confirmed he had a rare skindisorder:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_appearance_of_Michael_Jackson#Skin_color

...still reading about Jackson and seeing some of the photos of his skin. He obviously had major body issues, not just with the appearance of his skin but with his features as well. He also had other fairly deep psychological issues. But... you've changed my mind today about how some of his issues might have originated from a genetic skin disorder rather than his apparent skin issues stemming from his other mental problems.

I still regard jackson as a pedophile and psychological train wreck.

 

[PocketZeven]

That's the story but...



...from your link it kinda looks like he was just bleaching his skin and changing his nose because he had issues with his appearance.

I'm in no way saying that black people should or even could en mass go bleaching their skin. I'm saying that a lot is within one's control when it comes to physical appearance, and gave a drastic example of someone who clearly had body issues and went from being a black man to being a female skeleton.



You don't have ugly supremacy groups because nobody is worried about ugly people taking over or turning the tables. Beautiful people are so comfortable and confident that beauty will continue to be one of the most important physical attributes someone can have, that they haven't felt the need to militarize against the "competition". Once again, that only makes it an even bigger more fundamental issue than racism.

This is pretty much what every other post of mine in this thread boils down to - racism is one small facet of overall profiling, and it shouldn't be made in to the most important issue, because it really is just one of many many factors in how and why people mistreat each other. The other post (out of the every other post) is usually directed to how people are tripping over language.

I agree with your point. But this thread was about "white privilege" specifically. I was defending its existence, but that doesnt mean I deny existence any other mistreatment based on looks or discrimination in any shape or form. In the end if you are white, tall and slender you do probably have advantages in the USA.

...still reading about Jackson and seeing some of the photos of his skin. He obviously had major body issues, not just with the appearance of his skin but with his features as well. He also had other fairly deep psychological issues. But... you've changed my mind today about how some of his issues might have originated from a genetic skin disorder rather than his apparent skin issues stemming from his other mental problems.

I still regard jackson as a pedophile and psychological train wreck.

I agree on the psychological trainwreck not yet convinced about pedophile. I always thought he was just a guy stuck being a child and loved to hang out with children (in a non sexual way). I always noticed in interviews he often talks like a child.

 

[Rallywagon]

If the stories of his chemical castration are true, then it would be even less likely he would have been a peder. I've always doubted the claims to this as well.

 

[Danoff]

I agree on the psychological trainwreck not yet convinced about pedophile. I always thought he was just a guy stuck being a child and loved to hang out with children (in a non sexual way). I always noticed in interviews he often talks like a child.

If the stories of his chemical castration are true, then it would be even less likely he would have been a peder. I've always doubted the claims to this as well.

https://www.billboard.com/articles/...ichael-jackson-alleged-pornography-collection

I'm having trouble seeing it any other way.

 

[Rallywagon]

https://www.billboard.com/articles/...ichael-jackson-alleged-pornography-collection

I'm having trouble seeing it any other way.