What exactly is wonderful about being "Blonde"

[Guest American Woman]

(American Woman @ Sep 28 2007, 02:39 PM)

Sking lightening IS a big business:

"The skin-lightening industry is worth at least £100m in India" ... that's $200million American/Canadian dollars.

Link

Evidently a lot of people have been made to feel inferior because they are dark skinned.

Whoa....slow down...that custom has been around since history began...it's documented as early as the Alexandrian invasions and probably predates it by centuries. It's as ingrained, or actually more ingrained than the caste system. Beyond that, it's universal across the globe. No one "made" anyone feel inferior; it's a custom.

My point is that the myth of white superiority is alive and well, but it's source isn't a group of basement dwelling skinheads or some illuminati plot; its source is people who are not white. Flagellating whites for the beliefs of others is hardly fair.

It's a custom based on inferiority, whatever the reasons, whoever it is/was causing it. The reasons may change, but it's not a desire to be lighter skinned based on their thinking lighter skin is just more pleasing.

Way back when, lighter skin indicated wealth since the sun darkens, and darker skin indicated a laborer, someone who had to be out working in the sun. The same was thought by caucasians; rich people were lighter than those browned by the sun, working out in the fields. A suntan wasn't looked upon as "healthy and fit" in those days.

It's not universal across the board in history, however. I can't speak for the whole African continent because I don't know the whole history, but I know in parts of Africa the darker the skin, the better it was thought to be.

But as European nations invaded the world, the leaders of the conquered lands were white, so lighter skin was associated with power. Again, it wasn't because they found lighter skin more "pleasing."

I don't see myself "flagellating whites" anywhere in my post, though. Perhaps you could point out to me exactly where I did that. But I'll give you credit for acknowledging that the idea of "white superiority" is a myth.

[ScottSA]

Whoa....slow down...that custom has been around since history began...it's documented as early as the Alexandrian invasions and probably predates it by centuries. It's as ingrained, or actually more ingrained than the caste system. Beyond that, it's universal across the globe. No one "made" anyone feel inferior; it's a custom.

My point is that the myth of white superiority is alive and well, but it's source isn't a group of basement dwelling skinheads or some illuminati plot; its source is people who are not white. Flagellating whites for the beliefs of others is hardly fair.

It's a custom based on inferiority, whatever the reasons, whoever it is/was causing it. The reasons may change, but it's not a desire to be lighter skinned based on their thinking lighter skin is just more pleasing.

Way back when, lighter skin indicated wealth since the sun darkens, and darker skin indicated a laborer, someone who had to be out working in the sun. The same was thought by caucasians; rich people were lighter than those browned by the sun, working out in the fields. A suntan wasn't looked upon as "healthy and fit" in those days.

It's not universal across the board in history, however. I can't speak for the whole African continent because I don't know the whole history, but I know in parts of Africa the darker the skin, the better it was thought to be.

But as European nations invaded the world, the leaders of the conquered lands were white, so lighter skin was associated with power. Again, it wasn't because they found lighter skin more "pleasing."

I don't see myself "flagellating whites" anywhere in my post, though. Perhaps you could point out to me exactly where I did that. But I'll give you credit for acknowledging that the idea of "white superiority" is a myth.

Your history is simply made up. The silly worship of white skin predates colonialism by millenia, and it IS in fact universal. It just fits your desire to wear a hair shirt to blame colonialism for it. For God's sake, even the pre-Columbian Aztec legend of Quetzalcoatl posits him as white, and you can hardly blame colonialism for that. If you take the time to actually read about it instead of trying to place the blame on dead white males and accepting non-sensical revisionism at face value, you'd find that out.

For the folks who have trouble understanding what I'm saying here; I'm not claiming white skin is better than anyone else's hide. Quite the contrary in fact, but Jb seems to be having some problems understanding that, so perhaps others are too. I'm simply pointing out some inconvenient truths, to paraphrase a dolt.

[Guest American Woman]

Your history is simply made up. The silly worship of white skin predates colonialism by millenia, and it IS in fact universal. It just fits your desire to wear a hair shirt to blame colonialism for it. For God's sake, even the pre-Columbian Aztec legend of Quetzalcoatl posits him as white, and you can hardly blame colonialism for that. If you take the time to actually read about it instead of trying to place the blame on dead white males and accepting non-sensical revisionism at face value, you'd find that out.

For the folks who have trouble understanding what I'm saying here; I'm not claiming white skin is better than anyone else's hide. Quite the contrary in fact, but Jb seems to be having some problems understanding that, so perhaps others are too. I'm simply pointing out some inconvenient truths, to paraphrase a dolt.

Chill.

There's nothing "made up" about my history and the explanation I gave predates colonialism by millenia also-- so not once did I "blame colonialsim" for it, just as I didn't "flagellate whites" anywhere in my previous post, just as I didn't blame "dead white males" anywhere in my last post. And no, it's not universal.

Seems to me you're the one with problems understanding what's been said here. I suggest you take a deep breath and reread my posts before responding further.

[bush_cheney2004]

For the folks who have trouble understanding what I'm saying here; I'm not claiming white skin is better than anyone else's hide. Quite the contrary in fact, but Jb seems to be having some problems understanding that, so perhaps others are too. I'm simply pointing out some inconvenient truths, to paraphrase a dolt.

Indeed....skin cancer (e.g. squamous cell carcinoma) just loves "fair" skin. Still, it doesn't explain all those tanning parlors to cure "white as a fish belly" disease.

Edited September 29, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[marcinmoka]

And no, it's not universal.

With the exception of a few tribes (and cults) here and there, white has always been associated with good, truth, clarity, divinity, daylight whereas dark has always been evil, deception, night, danger, etc.

This is partly symptomatic of a primordially innate survival mechanism (avoiding the dangers of the night) which has followed humanity as it progressed and became more civilized.

But this is not to say that in some societies, individuals still desire to be perceived as "privileged whites" (one must simply look to most of Latin America). I just simply mean colonialism is not the sole force behind this practice.

[ScottSA]

Chill.

There's nothing "made up" about my history and the explanation I gave predates colonialism by millenia also-- so not once did I "blame colonialsim" for it, just as I didn't "flagellate whites" anywhere in my previous post, just as I didn't blame "dead white males" anywhere in my last post. And no, it's not universal.

Seems to me you're the one with problems understanding what's been said here. I suggest you take a deep breath and reread my posts before responding further.

Care to explain what you meant here then: "But as European nations invaded the world, the leaders of the conquered lands were white, so lighter skin was associated with power. Again, it wasn't because they found lighter skin more "pleasing."

[ScottSA]

With the exception of a few tribes (and cults) here and there, white has always been associated with good, truth, clarity, divinity, daylight whereas dark has always been evil, deception, night, danger, etc.

This is partly symptomatic of a primordially innate survival mechanism (avoiding the dangers of the night) which has followed humanity as it progressed and became more civilized.

But this is not to say that in some societies, individuals still desire to be perceived as "privileged whites" (one must simply look to most of Latin America). I just simply mean colonialism is not the sole force behind this practice.

Colonialism is not even a tiny bit behind this practice. Colonialism was certainly aided by it, but it was by no means the cause of any of it.

[Guest American Woman]

Care to explain what you meant here then: "But as European nations invaded the world, the leaders of the conquered lands were white, so lighter skin was associated with power. Again, it wasn't because they found lighter skin more "pleasing."

I was saying colonialism/imperialism was part of the problem; I didn't say it was to blame for the problem. I'd already explained that "way back when" the 'light skin is more desirable' mindset was due to the fact that the rich weren't working the fields, getting darkened by the sun, so it was a sign of wealth.

I also said the reasons for the "light skin is more desirable" mindset change with time. So again, not saying colonialism was to blame.

At one point in history was it partially to blame? Well, it was the cause of the mindset.

What about the direct actions of white men/women? Surely in some cases the some of the "dead white men" ARE to blame. I didn't blame them in my past posts, but I am now-- along with some dead white women. Surely after the Civil War, when blacks were so looked down upon, it was the fault of some "white men/women." It's still the fault of some white men and women. Live white men and women who promote the idea that light skin is better.

In this day and age the media/television/movies/fashion world etc. also play into the mindset. But some of the 'old' reasons still factor into it.

Just because you don't like the reasons why this mindset exists doesn't mean they are "made up." But speaking of making up reasons, I'd love to hear your explanation for the "light skin is better" mindset.

Edited September 30, 2007 by American Woman

[trex]

American Woman

i think your theory sounds reasonable. you are touching on the issue of "white superiority", and its origins here. so let me theorize a little further... for whatever reason, the white europeans have dominated other races throughout history. the egyptians took slaves, yes, but they did not expand their empire to a great extent, it was really the greeks first, alexander who made the first kind of "world empire". and this was modelled after by the roman empire many centuries later, which is still the foundation of our civilization today... part of the advantage is in military technology, which the white europeans seemd to always have the upper hand on. they developed these things faster than others. why is that? are the whites just smarter? i dont want to believe that, and im not sure it is in fact "smart". but it could be for certain tangible reasons, the geographical location of europe in the northern climate, means man has to live there by using technology, just in order to survive. so technology became an central element of their society, vs warmer climes where one doesnt need to build houses, or wear warm clothes, one can just sit on the beach... second possibility could be cultural, religion perhaps... the belief that man has dominion over the beasts of the earth, so as to subjugate nature, means having no problem doing it, use of animals as machines, then to create an industrial revolution, mechanize the use of natural resources for mass production... which brings us to the problem we have today, industrial living and destruction of the environment on a mass scale. so blame the whites! ;^)

an oversimplification, yes. but just some thoughts over my morning coffee...

[ScottSA]

i think your theory sounds reasonable. you are touching on the issue of "white superiority", and its origins here. so let me theorize a little further... for whatever reason, the white europeans have dominated other races throughout history. the egyptians took slaves, yes, but they did not expand their empire to a great extent, it was really the greeks first, alexander who made the first kind of "world empire". and this was modelled after by the roman empire many centuries later, which is still the foundation of our civilization today... part of the advantage is in military technology, which the white europeans seemd to always have the upper hand on. they developed these things faster than others. why is that? are the whites just smarter? i dont want to believe that, and im not sure it is in fact "smart". but it could be for certain tangible reasons, the geographical location of europe in the northern climate, means man has to live there by using technology, just in order to survive. so technology became an central element of their society, vs warmer climes where one doesnt need to build houses, or wear warm clothes, one can just sit on the beach... second possibility could be cultural, religion perhaps... the belief that man has dominion over the beasts of the earth, so as to subjugate nature, means having no problem doing it, use of animals as machines, then to create an industrial revolution, mechanize the use of natural resources for mass production... which brings us to the problem we have today, industrial living and destruction of the environment on a mass scale. so blame the whites! ;^)

an oversimplification, yes. but just some thoughts over my morning coffee...

Great rehashing and pasting together of a mishmash of theories as old as the hills, but how do you explain the fact that color selection predated colonialism by millenia, in some cases, as in the Americas, long before Caucasians had even been seen?

Europeans have benefited by this foolishness, to be sure, but they didn't invent the myth of white superiority. Trying to fit history into your wish to blame yourself is kind of silly, don't you think?

[trex]

Trying to fit history into your wish to blame yourself is kind of silly, don't you think?

i think trying to discuss anything with you is silly, actually. its not possible to take you seriously, with your snide undercutting, jeering remarks. if you want to talk about issues, we can talk. otherwise, we wont

[ScottSA]

I was saying colonialism/imperialism was part of the problem; I didn't say it was to blame for the problem. I'd already explained that "way back when" the 'light skin is more desirable' mindset was due to the fact that the rich weren't working the fields, getting darkened by the sun, so it was a sign of wealth.

I also said the reasons for the "light skin is more desirable" mindset change with time. So again, not saying colonialism was to blame.

At one point in history was it partially to blame? Well, it was the cause of the mindset.

What about the direct actions of white men/women? Surely in some cases the some of the "dead white men" ARE to blame. I didn't blame them in my past posts, but I am now-- along with some dead white women. Surely after the Civil War, when blacks were so looked down upon, it was the fault of some "white men/women." It's still the fault of some white men and women. Live white men and women who promote the idea that light skin is better.

In this day and age the media/television/movies/fashion world etc. also play into the mindset. But some of the 'old' reasons still factor into it.

Just because you don't like the reasons why this mindset exists doesn't mean they are "made up." But speaking of making up reasons, I'd love to hear your explanation for the "light skin is better" mindset.

I have no idea why the silly notion of white superiority evolved, nor do I pretend to. For all I know, it's as ancient as the prehistoric duality between darkness and light, but I have no grounds to defend that theory, so I'll leave it undefended.

What I do know is that colonialism didn't cause it. It didn't cause pre-columbian American legends of white winged Gods, since that was millenia older than the advent of European colonialism or even exploration. It didn't cause African line whitening. It didn't cause Asian line whitening. I've heard some, not well defended, arguments suggesting that line whitening in the Caribbean is an aftershock of slavery, but if it is, it's an aberration with I suspect roots much deeper than that. The Chinese practised it eons before the first contact with the west. Today it is accepted as a norm for around 5+billion people across the globe.

On a personal note, I think it's ridiculous, and more than that it's dangerous, because with admiration goes a great deal of resentment and hatred, which we see and manage to ignore or internalize every day from the mouths of such luminaries as Jackson and the Rev. I'm all for destroying the myth, but not at the cost of making up history, and not at the cost of blaming my civilization for a genetic game of chance.

Edited September 30, 2007 by ScottSA

[bush_cheney2004]

Great rehashing and pasting together of a mishmash of theories as old as the hills, but how do you explain the fact that color selection predated colonialism by millenia, in some cases, as in the Americas, long before Caucasians had even been seen?

Europeans have benefited by this foolishness, to be sure, but they didn't invent the myth of white superiority. Trying to fit history into your wish to blame yourself is kind of silly, don't you think?

Of course, but best for the revisionists to ignore such pre-Columbian slaughter and conquest in the Americas, not to mention the Mongol Hordes from Asia handing Europe their collective asses.

[Argus]

And your verbal white supremacist assaults are better? This town (link) would be the place for you.

What is this based on? I see nothing in this thread to justify that kind of garbage. You're out of line jbg.

[jbg]

What is this based on? I see nothing in this thread to justify that kind of garbage. You're out of line jbg.

What's out of line about referencing a perfectly nice small town in Northern Ontario. Neil Young sang about just such a town in "Helpless".

[jefferiah]

Blondes are supposed to have more fun.

[ScottSA]

What's out of line about referencing a perfectly nice small town in Northern Ontario. Neil Young sang about just such a town in "Helpless".

I take it that's not an apology. Oh well.

[jbg]

I take it that's not an apology. Oh well.

I thought I had previously. I am sorry, and meant no offense.

Jim

[ScottSA]

I thought I had previously. I am sorry, and meant no offense.

Jim

No problem. I don't mind being chased around the block by the usual suspects, but when sane folks start throwing bricks it concerns me a bit...

[jbg]

No problem. I don't mind being chased around the block by the usual suspects, but when sane folks start throwing bricks it concerns me a bit...

All that I ask is that us sane folk not lower ourselves to the leftists' tactics. I don't want to jump in the moshpit with the likes of them.

[ScottSA]

All that I ask is that us sane folk not lower ourselves to the leftists' tactics. I don't want to jump in the moshpit with the likes of them.

Well that's different. I'm down in the slimepit half the time flinging odure at the lefties. But that's another topic altogether.

[Charles Anthony]

The above exchange can continue through the Personal Messaging function if necessary. The public tit for tat is over.

Please stay on topic throughout the rest of the thread.

[August1991]

But as European nations invaded the world, the leaders of the conquered lands were white, so lighter skin was associated with power. Again, it wasn't because they found lighter skin more "pleasing."

My thinking too.

Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost takes it back some 11,000 years to just after the last Ice Age. Food was scarce in northern Europe, as were men, many of whom died roaming the tundra hunting game.

Back on the home front, according to Frost, the males who survived could be choosy, preferring the blond-haired, blue-eyed women who stood out from their more plentiful dark-haired rivals. Hence begetting more blonds.

"With very intense sexual selection, you get chosen for bright colours. We see this in birds and mammals," says Frost, a research associate at Laval University whose work was published last year in the academic journal Evolution and Human Behaviour. "In a very competitive market, you have to stand out visually."

...

"The real appeal," says evolutionary psychologist Salmon, "is always to look more exotic."

Toronto Star

This anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist argue nonsense. Dwarfs are exotic and attract attention yet dwarfs are not considered a good match. Blonds are no more a bright colour than black or brown. If blondes have a higher value in the mating market, and I think they do, then the explanation is found elsewhere.

[Moxie]

Are we talking about a "Natural Blonde" or a "Bottle Blonde", there is a great deal more of the bottle variety than the "natural".

Flawless white skin and blonde hair have been desirable traits amongst those of Europian Decent since the Victorian times. Blonde hair and blue eyes are deemed more attractive to some cultures, personally I have no preference. However statistically speaking "Redheads" are meaner and more sarcastic than blondes.

Moxie study c. 2007.

[buffycat]

However statistically speaking "Redheads" are meaner and more sarcastic than blondes.

Moxie study c. 2007.

I call total BS on that one Moxie.