A few weeks ago we discussed a new kind of camp for Indian children adopted by white American parents. Today, via a tip on the news tab, I came across an article on Alternet by a Jewish New Yorker who adopted an Indian baby as a single mother, and was somewhat taken aback by the darkness of her child’s skin:
The first photo I received of [Redacted] showed her with fair skin. I was surprised, because from what my adoption agency told me, the child assigned to me would be much darker. After I got over that surprise, I had another: I felt relief. Suddenly — guiltily — it was a comfort to know that she would not look so different from me, and even more important, that her light skin would save her from a lifetime of prejudice. But ah, the magic of flashbulbs. A few months later I received several more photos and gaped at them in shock. The baby was much, much darker. (link)
[Redacted] has, initially, a lot of anxiety to deal with about the gap between her skin tone and that of her adopted daughter (read the whole article for examples: the kicker is the diaper change). She gets over it, but is still often surprised by the fact that no one in her social circle — including her Indian and Black friends — is as dark as her daughter:
Very soon, my daughter will have a lot to process. She’s adopted, she’s the child of a single mother, she’s an Indian Jew by conversion. We spent the summer with my father in upstate New York, and she was nearly always the darkest child in music class, gymnastics and day care. In New York City, even Blacks and Indians in [Redacted]’s and my social circle are lighter than she. Over and over I see how light skin equals privilege. Now that I have become [Redacted]’s mother, I realize: We need darker friends. (link)
I’m sure there will be some folks who will be offended that [Redacted] is publicly stating some of these things she says in this article. I personally am not: she’s expressing the shock she felt along with her embarrassment about that shock, and describing how she got past it. Yes, her initial reaction to her baby’s skin tone betrays “racism,” but it looks to me like she’s recognized and dealt with it.
Still, I wonder what people think about the solution she outlines: “We need darker friends.” Is it really damaging to a child (the baby has grown up some now) not to be around anyone who physically resembles her? And wouldn’t it be slightly strange to seek out “friends” on this basis?
[Oh, and one more thing: the Times recently had an interesting article on the growing number of cross-racial adoptions in the U.S.]
“…that times are changing, and with India being considered a lot more hip, trendy, and cool these days, some of these people may be finally embracing the desi side of their heritage.”
just to clarify, while i understand there were reasons for people hiding their ancestry and pretending to be something else, and while i can, like amitabh, appreciate genuine attempts by those who wish to rediscover their indian roots (and those who don’t wish to, that’s fine too), what i find unseemly is those who appear to be “rediscovering” their roots purely for mercenary reasons rather than any genuine curiosity or love for the country or culture. they’d be more honest if they just went on ignoring that side of them like they have in the past.
and kush is right, although there was undoubtedly that anglo-indian “cotton/chutnee mary” syndrome (ismail merchant was the target of a lot of anglo-indian anger for portraying that side in his film), there have also been many who, post-independence, have contributed a lot to india in many fields. roger binny is another who springs to mind – cricket.
oprah is shocked to learn she has virtually no native american blood. as a kid, she was constantly told she had a lot of american indian in her. apparently, this was a favored background among blacks at the time. “anything but black” i think she called it.
i have commented on this. one should be a bit skeptical about accepting these sort of results for individuals, though there are reasons that i suspect oprah is correct, a decade of genetic studies do suggest that the % of native americans is far lower in the black american population than previously assumed. the native americans were never enslaved.
these tests come up really messed up for brown people because they are optimized for american whites and blacks, as these groups are the main $$$ source for the companies peddaling them. they present brown people as admixtures of “primary” races (usually 3/4 “Indo-European,” some other stuff, usually “East Asian,” thrown in), but that’s not true, the tests just start with simplified assumptions and brown people are outside their boundary conditions so they collapse.
for mercenary reasons rather than any genuine curiosity or love for the country or culture
i the black-white dichotomy fails to capture the subtle and grey reasons people make the decisions that they do, though the point is well taken.
There were lots of communities that took pride in being “more british than the british”, for example the parsees, but they haven’t lost respect since. I suspect its as razib said more of a class issue because of the origins of their Indian halves.
“more british than the british”, for example the parsees, but they haven’t lost respect since
For two reasons:
1) They had financial and political clout always. Very prominent earliest freedom fighters were Parsees – like Dadabhai Naoroji – the Grand Old Man of India and Gandhi’s mentor. Jinnah’s daighter was married to Wadia family.
2) The had the means and foresight of being on the forefront of modernization of India. Tatas predates Azim Premjis by a century.
Very prominent earliest freedom fighters were Parsees
i think this is key. the perception, whether true or not, is that anglo-indians were aligned with “queen & country.”
Bass guitarist from the re-organized punk rock band The Clash, is half Pakistani. I met him on a bus in San Francisco.
I also met Ruskin Bond (did’nt know he was anglo-indian) in his home town of Mussorie in what is now Uttaranchal but at that time was still part of Uttar Pradesh. He picked me up hich-hiking up the mountain back to Landour Language School where I was studying Hindi. I had no idea who he was. His driver told me. Then I a vaguely recognized the name. Nice man to give me a lift.
Razib –
Thanks for the info. I think I’ll copy and paste it in an email to mera jaan and see what he says.
Yes, dalitistan.org is very political. Now there is some alliance between them and “non-assimiliated” muslims to push for a further partitioning of India into Mughalistan. I find it strange how they managed to rally professional African American writers, professors and scholars behind their cause. Another funny thing is how they still believe cent percent in the “Aryan Invasion Theory” (AIT), when as Shazam pointed out, it was a theory created to keep Indians in a survile position. But it seems now the “dalits” use same theory to assert oppression by their modern day brothers and sisters in India. Anyway, the black authors mera jaan has turned me onto also hang on to that theory, when I think it has been debunked for decades now, due to lack of sufficient evidence of any such invasion taking place. And whatever they say is like gospel to him and it’s very hard to crack his nut of convictions. I’m re-thinking taking him with me to India. (Sorry Vasundhara Auntie!)
If you have any good links indicating scientific proof of the origins of ancient Egyptian culture (KMT, Khemet) and the who’s, how’s and why’s behind it, please provide for me here.
You are right when you say Africa-centric theory is very similar to Hindu Nationalistic-everything-originated-in-Bharat theory. That was the first thing I noticed when I started reading it. Aside from a few data based facts, they both seem to rest on shabbily researched fantasy.
R.K. Khan –
If you want to see alot of inter-racial marriages, I suggest you check out ISKCON centers around you or other Indian based religious groups that have a world-wide following. ISKCON and other internationally based Gaudiya Vaishnava groups actually have quite a large percentage of inter-racial marriages, indians with non indians, and blacks with whites, and others.
You have to be naive to assume that in India lighter skin tone does not equal old money, better families and the fairer-than-thou attitude that comes with it. I refuse to pass judgment on the woman who wrote the article. But I have to confess she did get this one thing right.
Before I go on a very long rant here is something you need to know:
Someone I’ve met for the first time (SFT): So, where are you from? Me: Kerala,India. SFT: Hmm.., not originally..LIKE u know..from around where?? Me: Uhmm..Kerala, India. SFT: Oh. Me: I am here for an education. My parents and my whole family are back home. I live in Brooklyn. SFT: OHHH…
Most people where I am from relate fairness to old money and good families or in other words privileged. Let’s see why –
Fairness in India is considered an asset. (To anyone who wants to dispute this fact – be warned, I will shove the sales figures for “Fair & Lovely” fairness creams under you nose). Heirs to good families and old money get to pick the women they want to marry. Guess who they pick? My cousin, when he was five, declared that he wanted to marry a girl the color of milk?? Anyway, this nonsense permeates the generations and the privileged churn out one fair kid after the other. So no matter what the nice lady in NY who adopted a poor Indian kid has to say/do, she was right about this one thing.
I am 23 and spend 21 of those years back home in Kerala. In the south of India, especially in Kerala and Tamil Nadu you will find people in every shade of brown imaginable….the range in this spectrum in the south is certainly much larger than in the North, albeit the mode shade in the north and south would be the same.
My uncle who works in Chennai tells me that since he is considerably fairer than the average Tamilian most people assume heÂ’s Brahmin (read upper caste). He works for IBM! I would think the people he meet would be the educated, sensible sorts. DoesnÂ’t make much sense or does it ; )
the range in this spectrum in the south is certainly much larger than in the North, albeit the mode shade in the north and south would be the same.
if by “mode” you mean most common, no. if my mode you mean “median” or “mean,” no. if by “range” you mean variance, i suspect it will be the same, but, base on genetics you would assume that the variation would be greater in north india. the reason is that when all the “color” genes are turned on, you can’t get naturally darker for genetic reasons. so, the variance in color in zaire is somewhat lower than in india because there is a “wall” beyond which you can’t get darker. some indians have also hit this wall, where all genes are turned on and producing melanin, and the % of these are higher than in north india. there is another “wall,” which european redheads reach, which is close (though not exactly) to albino (no ability to tan). but, very few (trivial) north indians hit this particular wall. in other words, they are ranging across the mixed genetic states in the middle, while south indians are shifted more toward a particular saturation point.
sorry to be pedantic, but these “color” debates are so fraught with subjective perception and anecdotes that some level of poindexter nerdishness can’t hurt.
PG,
Black Athena Revisited is a good sourcebook for the debunkings of egyptians-are-black. 20 academic articles. but, it is easy to find books on ancient egypt which aren’t afrocentric.
Oh Wow, Susan in #532 has uttered the “F phrase” (‘Fair and lovely’) … and attemped to challenge people to disprove that people in India are obsessed with fair skin. (As opposed to the west where for mating no physical characteristics of the potential mate is considered) …. I will check back after 800 comments !!!
Susan –
While I don’t dispute the fact that fair skin seems to be the preference in India, I’m not quite sure what this had to do with anything;
Someone I’ve met for the first time (SFT): So, where are you from? Me: Kerala,India. SFT: Hmm.., not originally..LIKE u know..from around where?? Me: Uhmm..Kerala, India. SFT: Oh. Me: I am here for an education. My parents and my whole family are back home. I live in Brooklyn. SFT: OHHH…
Also, as I mentioned on the 3 Little Macacas thread, white people are referred to derogatorily as Lal Bandaron in North India. Lal = Red. Bandar = Monkey. In other words, the pink tones of our faces resemble the pink tones of the commonly found monkeys up north. So while I think a fair shade of brown (what might be considered “golden”) is considered attractive on Indians, I don’t think the same Indians find extremely fair or white/pink toned caucasian skin very attractive.
brown.
R.K. Khan, no stats were ever taken for such. Religious groups, at least the ones I mentioned above, don’t do that sort of thing. I’m just speaking from personal experience. There’s alot of inter-racial marriages. ISKCON is even dealing with same-sex marriages now.
isn’t PG a chick?
But what’s wrong with wanting to be fair and lovely? I grew up in India and am the darkest in the family. I got to hear many a comment on that from my grandmother/relatives. To me, such comments belonged in the same genre as “she’s not good in studies”, or “she’s not responsible” – just another one of those umpteen critcisms which are dished out right to your face in India. I did not consider being dark as a handicap or feel bad about it until my early teens when I became a slave to fashion.
I would think it is perfectly normal for the ideal of beauty to be something that is uncommon. In the land of the dark-skinned, fair skin would be one such ideal. Perhaps that’s why a tan is cherished in the west. As is being skinny in this over-fed nation. Being plump was considered good in half-starved India before the western ideal of skinny took over.
In any case, I see nothing in the least bit racist about the fair skin craze. Now, if people deliberately denigrate dark skin that is racist. But I can totally see why in India plain-looking fair girls are prized more than the pretty ones who happen to be dark.
…and then rode in Divya, torch to the ground…
Techno – I don’t dispute Punjabis’ ‘brownness’, not at all. My aunt is a very fair-skinned Punjabi – but the thought of her going on about how Punjabis look like Latins, and how much fairer they are than most Indians, is unthinkable. She’s far too high-minded. Such preoccupations simply do not interest her. I’d like certain individuals to stop obsessing about how fair their communities are under the guise of discussing colour prejudice. That sort of hypocrisy makes me sick – and simply perpetuates the prejudice.
I would think it is perfectly normal for the ideal of beauty to be something that is uncommon.
this is a complicated topic, but, psychological studies seem to suggest two things
a) symmetry & “averageness” tend to be considered beautiful, because deviation from the population norm suggests lack of developmental stability b) but, there are certain deviations that seem related to sexual vigor, fertility or fecundity where deviation is preferred. e.g., population normalized “fair” skin in women, as well as large eyes and relatively childlike features as an adult (paedeomorphism)
and c), there is of course cultural fads, contexts, etc. e.g., before european supremacy epicanthic folds and black hair were normative as beautiful in japan (brownish haired women would dye their hair black). today, women brown their hair and get surgery to remove their epicanthic folds.
Perhaps that’s why a tan is cherished in the west.
in females light skin was preferred until the 20th century (this is one reason why victorian ladies walked around with umbrellas on rainless days). during the 20th century tans started to associated with leisure time, and vacations in tropical locations which were afforded only by the elites. so it began to have a high SES association. consider the stereotype of “trailer trash” and “crackers.” they are “pasty.” they work indoors in dimly lim factories, etc.
i await the subsequent 544 comments on this topic 🙂
p.s.
consider a model. you have a stratified society where the vast majority are peasants, and a small elite are not. the peasants, being out the field, are naturally darker skinned than the elite, who remain indoors much of the time. now, consider that this population exhibits variation in complexion. add to this hypergamy, where lower status females may move “up” the social ladder if they gain the eye of an elite male.
in generation 1, all the difference in coloration between the elite and the masses may be attributable to environment. but, as each generation progresses, a % of lower class women ascend to higher status because of their beauty. what is the criteria for beauty? one variable is likely to be complexion, as light complexion is associated with elite status (i.e., you are not “black as a peasant”). the elite males want light women (in part because there is some correlation between fecundity and light complexion in females within a population) because the structural nature of elite life results in their skin being less exposed to sun and they wish to reinforce their perception of leisure. but, how would a woman of lower class, peasant origin, be light when she was exposed to the sun? she maybe part of the natural genetic variation within the population and so start out light. so, every generation a number of genetically light women promote themselves up, their coloration signalling high status even when they are exposed to the sun. over time these women will begain to change the genetic structure of the elite, where once their light skin was purely a function of environment, now it will also be reinforced by the fact that they have a greater proportion of naturally light skin generating genes from their lower class female ancestors.
anyway, just a model, but i think it is plausible. i once saw an ethnographic study of the tokugawa period in japan and the social promotion of beautiful women into the court of the emperor often emphasized their light skin, and it seems that the hereditary aristocracy in japan (all of which except the emperor and his immediate were stripped of title after world war ii) were naturally fairer skinned than the majority of japanese.
That was also related to SES or class if you will. People who worked and toiled lost their lily white looks and I suppose victorian high society chose to preserve their ultra-white distinguishing mark of high class in their pasty complexions. Until the jet-set leisure society was born and tans began to be valued more. Plus having to work for a living also became more cherished as an ideal for women.
I see the value of symmetery and averageness – lack of it could be considered a deformity. But I’m totally missing how whiteness could be related to fecundity and I generally don’t think humans make rational decisions in matters related to beauty.
Also, isn’t wanting to be blonde the same thing (for whites)? I’m trying to say that this cannot be considered racism. To be sure it’s a shallowness of some sort but that’s hardly a crime.
Technophobicgeek, I do agree with the above. But would we forgive the ordinary German citizen in the pre WW2 days who was an avid Nazi supporter? You and I, had we been Germans of that era, would probably have done the same. Of course I am not comparing Anglo-Indians to Nazis, it’s just an analogy.
At the end of the day, groups like Anglo-Indians and Parsees have played a role in de-Indianizing (culturally and linguistically) the elite classes of urban India. At a time when Indians did not have a good Indian model of how to be modernised, educated, urbanised, affluent, and YET rooted in Indian traditions, the only pattern they had to follow was one established by these white-washed, more British than the British communities. I forget who said, in reference to the cultural changes taking place in urban India sometime back, that ‘we are all becoming Anglo-Indian by culture’. The South Bombay brats which were mentioned upthread, are the ideologic/cultural/spiritual descendants of the Anglo-Indian/Parsee model.
Divya, in the Indian context, colorism should be considered as damaging and unjust as racism. The vast majority of Indians are far darker than the ideal they see on billboards and in newspapers and films. Basically, the poor in India are brainwashed daily into thinking that, no matter what, they are basically, inescapably ugly because of the dark hue of their skin. It’s the same as when black people were dismissed as ugly because of their ‘broad noses’ and ‘thick lips’. This type of aesthetic hierarchy goes hand in hand with other hierarchies. Colorism is a psychological tool that is used on the poor in India. Brunettes in America can dye their hair; a dark-skinned Indian can’t do a damn thing.
But I’m totally missing how whiteness could be related to fecundity and I generally don’t think humans make rational decisions in matters related to beauty.
this is a subtle point. it isn’t whiteness, but population scaled complexion. that is, within a population, the ligher females tend to be preferred. why? evolutionary psychologists point to these facts:
1) on average, within a population, women are 5-10% lighter skinned than males. so, being light is “more feminine.”
2) females are palest in the initiation puberty-20 year old range, and they get darker with age. they get darker with every pregnancy. so, population relative light skin is a cue for fertility, or at least, many future pregnancies. if within a population males were cued to go for darker females, on average those females would be older, or have had pregnancies already. there are fitness related reasons why this would be maladptive
3) it seems that there is some relationship (it is complicated, and the pathways are not totally elucidated) between basal testosterone rates and melanin production. while females get lighter during puberty from their childhood years, males become darker. the darkest males also tend to have more tesosterone in their system (within a population), while the lightest females seem to have the (on average) most favorable estrogen/testosterone ratio
4) the last is important in that women who have more estrogen and less testosterone seem to get pregnant more easily. so within a population it maybe that light women are more likely to get pregnant
i keep repeating within a population because there are other reasons that populations are dark or light, and the range is pretty great. the key is that different populations tend to exhibit ranges that do still correlate with these parameters i’m listing above, no matter their population average coloration.
to be more explicit, consider that 90% of color variation within populations is due to 4 genes. these genes have nothing to do with fertility, or fitness, or masculinity, or feminity. but, genes that do effect fertility have subtle impacts on how these 4 genes are expressed. so some of the variation within a population in color has to do with the genes that effect fertility. across populations though this is not relevant, because the effect of the fertility related genes is very small, white women are not more fertile than black women, because the difference bewteen these two groups is mostly due to the 4 color genes (and 4 does seem about right according to the most recent research, or perhaps 5 or 6).
your point about blondes is interesting, because taking this speculative line of thought as a starting point, in white skinned populations there really isn’t enough visible color variation to get an assay of fertility. to generalize, they are generall brunette white to pink. but, hair color is also controlled by some of the same genes as skin color, so, in european populations it may have been that blonde air emerges as a further signal of estrogen/testosterone ratios.
of course, this is all modified by a lot of cultural values. e.g., the model above suggests that the darkest males should be preferred, but in most of asia the palest ones are preferred, because it is associated with high SES. on the other hand, i have seen psychological studies in the united states which suggest women do tend to prefer men who are somewhat darker than themselves (e.g., blonde women tend to prefer men who are not as blonde as themselves, and so on).
technophobicgeek wrote;
Whats old are his silly delusions regarding color and the constant extolling of the non-indian appearance of a tiny fraction of indians. As a dark/black bengali you of all people should be well aware of the serious negative repurcussions of such a complex. Ask Razib the bangladeshi to explain to you the traumatic experience of bengalis at the hand of pakistani punjabis, who had a similar complex as Jai’s.
Its possible that India’s miserable conditions are a consequence of this tendency to see the non-indian as more worthy/admirable/desirable. Why else are indians so callous towards the immense suffering of the “non-latin” looking indigenous population who constitute the overwhelming majority? I see too many indians faking compassion for the sufferings of peoples around the world…..as long as those people aren’t indians or africans! A contemptible lot indeed.
a dark-skinned Indian can’t do a damn thing
now they can’t. i wouldn’t be surprised within the generation if skin lightening cremes do become far better, far cheaper, and far safer.
Ask Razib the bangladeshi to explain to you the traumatic experience of bengalis at the hand of pakistani punjabis, who had a similar complex as Jai’s.
you know what, i’m trying to fucking ignore you, but will you lay off on bring up what you term the “traumatic experience” of bangladesh as a way to forward your talking points? i don’t give a damn if you attack me, but millions of people were seriously affected (my mother was shot “by mistake,” now find a way to fucking turn into how she’s black), the way you are bringing it up as a way to character assassinate people trivializes it and makes it just a means toward whatever ends you have. i was really disgusted by your bringing up the rapes in such a glib manner, and i didn’t want to feed the troll, but enough is enough.
Razib wrote:
Ignorant nonsense. Japanese see themselves as a mix of three races: malay, mongol and caucasian. Unfortunately for your white-supremacist fantasies it was the darkest of these groups, the malays, who constituted the elite of japanese society. Take a look at Emperor Hirohito for example:
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/img/Hirohito.gif
Dharma Queen – I don’t see how your point holds because there are poor people who are fair and rich people who are dark. Ditto for the power equation. Yes, the dark are made to feel like they’re not beautiful. But so what? People need to learn to live with their lack of beauty (perceived or otherwise).
This is as bad as this thing I read about a mother who had her son’s ears fixed because they were bigger than normal and he was made fun of in school. Now with his to-die-for ears he can really be who he is it seems. I don’t think this is really about color but about the attitude in general.
There is no institutionalized racism in India with regard to color. If the aunties want us to be fair that does not make them any worse than those who believe that it’s not okay to cherish fairness. It seems like an imposition without being productive in any way, imo.
Shazam, you are calling Jai delusional (for stating facts), yet you go on about Pakistani Punjabis in relation to Bengalis. So are you delusional yourself or do you agree that there are physical differences (on average)? What you seem to be upset about is the atrocious behaviour shown by some groups on the basis of these perceived differences…but Jai never did or implied anything to suggest he approves of those sorts of behaviors. It is not wrong if one states the fact that Swedes are fairer than Punjabis. I do agree with your last paragraph though.
Last paragraph in #552.
Razib wrote:
Calm down pal and stop lying. Show us where I mentioned “rape”? I was referring to the genocide perpetrated by west pakistanis against the bengalis, which was motivated by the same sense of color superiority that you have made a career out of peddling.
Explain to us how your pandering to white supremacy benefits Bangladesh and India? You seem to have learned the wrong lesson from the Bangladeshi holocaust.
you have a problem reading?
I think it was the pakistani punjabi general Tikka Khan (not sure) who notoriously declared that east pakistani bengalis were “kala kuttas”, and that the west pakistani army of punjabis and pathans would improve their genetic stock by raping their women.
asshole.
I dunno, Razib, I live in Montreal, and it seems like every second couple is a black chick with a hot French guy. The black girls get the hottest guys in this city. It sucks. It’s getting so bad that even mediocre looking black chicks get the cutest French guys. So I don’t buy this ‘lighter is more feminine’ argument.
While I think the blonde craze is foolish, and that women who dye their hair to be blonde are silly, none of that is psychologically damaging in the way colorism in India is – because most westerners have a lot of choices, and can shift SES if they really want to. Physical attributes are not married to SES in the same way. Given the Indian context, if people start lightening their skin, it is more than just an expression of silliness – it’s a class statement. Just like Malcolm X exhorted blacks to stop aping white people and straightening their hair, I would hope someone would convince poorer Indians to love their skin for what it is. I’ve seen so many drop dead gorgeous dark working class girls (and guys) in India. Tagore said it best in his song describing a peasant girl he sees for an instant: ‘You say she’s dark? Doesn’t matter how dark she is, her eyes are dark like those of a deer…”
SM Intern: Please don’t close comments before 600.
So I don’t buy this ‘lighter is more feminine’ argument.
there is more than one parameter (as i noted above). i’m not saying that the regression is strong, and other parameters can swamp it out. e.g., if nigerians became the next superpower, etc. also, most of my argument is within population. all variables controlled. to be clearer, the factors i’m talking about can be a weak basal signal that transcends cultures, but most of the variation might be due to locally and temporally contingent parameters (e.g., fads, fashions, social norms).
Divya wrote:
Hard to believe one could be this ignorant considering how much the blond nordic racism of the nazis, and its horrible consequences, is in your face.
Divya, I can see your point, but from my experience most poor Indians are much darker than most middle-class Indians. This isn’t an absolute rule, of course – but spending massive amounts of time in the sun is bound to have an effect. My female cousins (the wusses!) walk around with parasols! Not a single one of them is darker than the maids who stroll around the neighbourhood, parasol-free (like sensible beings…)
Dharma Queen wrote:
The better off indians aren’t comfortable in their own dark skins either. In fact the more westernized indians are more likely to be traumatized by their own skin. Do you think the hungry masses of India are the ones buying fair and lovely?
That is a good example of self-delusion. As if Tagore was fair-skinned himself! I posted about his humiliating experience in America in the beginning of the last century, when he was treated like a black man. Ditto for the experience of the brahmin Nobel laureate Chandrashekhar in the 1950s. Indians can thank the Civil Rights movement of the american negro Martin Luther King Jr for whatever acceptance they find in America today.
I don’t know how you can get a more Westernized Indian than me, and I walk around in the sun till the aunties are screaming, and get a deep dark chocolate brown. Doesn’t bother me a bit. Why? Cause I know I can’t get the really cute French guys in my city till I’m black. (Oneup, you should check it out if you’re single. All you have to do up here is be ablebodied and breathing.)
What does it take to get the cute French women in your city?
Why on earth not? I have banned and re-banned someone who has switched his IP address FOUR times today, in his attempt to get around our attempts to prevent him from abusing this thread and others.
Fret not, the dark vs. fair debate will not die with a mere closed thread…
Well…let’s hope the Punjabi=Latin thing has some substance to it. If so, all you Punjabi guys have it made. Specially if you do stubble nicely, and cultivate the bad boy thing (even if it’s fake). Pretending to be a gangsta might help.
Not being a French girl, though, I might be making this all up. I’m basing some of it on a Mexican friend of mine who got used and abused repeatedly by French girls in a way that would make most men deliriously happy.
Oh, and learn how to salsa, samba and bachata – show off the steps whenever you can (providing you’re good) and make mention repeatedly of how ‘sensual’ these dances are.
Ouch!
Forget it…French girls ain’t worth all that!
Women get darker with each pregnancy??!! So, if we’re assuming that people in India are overwhelming fetishistic about ‘fair complexions’ then hey, spreading this “darker with each pregnancy” rumour (surely not fact?) may be the solution to India’s population problem :)!
Proposed slogan: “Hum gore, woh gori…Kum karo chote chote chora chori”
(re Razib’s post on 551 above)
You can also find a variety of sources the debunk Black Athena Revisted. I think it is interesting that there are SO many people hellbent on proving Egypt was not a black society. People may not be overt in their motives, but if race isn’t a big issue to the majority of these scientists, why focus on the racial side of egypt at all? I think there are a lot of afro-centric scientists who come up with some crazy theories, but at least I know exactly where they are trying to go with their findings. Why don’t the non-afrocentric scientists just come out and say how they really feel and why they are really trying to prove ancient egypt wasnt black.
I guess part of it has to do with what you consider black. If you mean to say that only VERY darkskinned individuals with blue-black skin can be black, then maybe not. I don’t doubt that the people of Egypt were lighter than most people in sub-saharan africa, but I am lighter than most black people in sub-saharan africa too. And I am never mistaken for anything but black. The murals that the Egyptians painted often show a shade of brown that is almost exactly the shade of my skin. A toasty brown. Not to mention the fact that Nubia was extremely close to Ancient Egypt and shared a large amount of culture with the nation. I just don’t understand why it is so easy for people to believe Egyptians mixed with Greeks, Arabs, etc. people who lived beyond a water boundary… but they refuse to believe even slightly that the Nubians, who were EXTREMELY close in proximity (and without any significant natural barriers) and relatively close in culture, ever mingled with the Egyptians at all.
Razib, you keep pulling up that color map, but you somehow seem to be missing that even your own map shows a variety of complexions in Africa. I don’t have a huge interest in proving ancient egypt was a pred. black society, since I don’t think the value of african history lies in one area of the continent… but I do find it annoying that people need to do so much research just to prove there are africans in africa. Its funny that greeks and italians can get really really dark (to the point where they look latino) as well, but very few people seem to want to prove darker people came into those areas…
well…. must be a matter of playing the odds then… cuz sometimes one comes up a turkey. 🙂
LOL. Mind you, Her Excellency may simply be an exceptional female who prefers brains to brawn…