I wish we were beyond this exasperating stupidity. Via TOIlet (no need to visit and catch a VTD, the entire article is quoted below:
Three-month-old Livya was rejected thrice by prospective Indian parents, who found her too dark. A year later, however, an American couple chose to adopt her and flew her to the US. She now lives with her parents and has two siblings — one from Korea and another from Vietnam.
Livya was lucky, but the story is not the same for other adoptable children. Many who are legally free for adoption continue to face discrimination as wannabe Indian parents look for a “fair and lovely” baby, though the law prevents one from picking and choosing babies for adoption.
Perhaps those overlooked children are better off without such complexion-obsessed parents. After all, there is always the Angelina effect (aside: once again, Madonna is associated with the word “wanna-be”):
But most foreign couples prefer children who are dark-skinned, older or with medical concerns, HIV positive and with special needs.
And here, the reason for my title (and the explanation for the painful noise my jaw made when it fell on my desk):
Secretary for the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA), O P Sirohe, says in-country adoptions have been encouraging and there is a long list of parents waiting. But still, they ask for fair-skinned, healthy and, preferably, Punjabi child as it is usually chubby. A child is no market commodity and adoptions become meaningful only when there is a change in people”s attitude, he says.
Preferably a Punjabi child. Wow. I love chubby babies, too (my Godson’s nickname wasn’t “The Pudgesicle†for nothing)…but this just makes my stomach twist. What are you adopting? A baby or an accessory? What does this even mean? That it’s too much work to feed your new kid butter-laced everything, so you can chub them up sufficiently yourself? “Honey, let’s go shopping for a baby on Saturday—I heard they have new Punjabi models in stock!” And to my Punjabi peeps…um…how do you feel about being objectified due to such a dubious distinction?
Foreign couples are more open to adopting any child, irrespective of its age, religion, skin colour or looks. Children who are older, with special needs and medical conditions are finding homes overseas, he says.
“NRIs and couples from Italy, Germany, US, Spain and Sweden take home kids with special needs. We place such children in Indian homes too, but they are an exception,” says Dr Aloma Lobo, chairperson, Adoption Coordinating Agency, Karnataka.
And thanggawd for it.
The following concern isn’t exclusive to India; American “waiting†children don’t have much luck when they are in their teens, either. Everyone wants a baby. And sometimes, a chubby one.
Another hurdle in the adoption of children is their age. For instance, Lakshmi, who is 13 years old, has still not found a home as her age is a major deterrent.
The law allows adoptions only up to the age of 12 (inter-country) and stipulates that the older parents age should not exceed 45. This is a setback as older children are not preferred by young couples and the older couples cannot adopt due to age limit.
It is quite a paradox as older couples have better financial status and parenting experience and can spend more time with the child, adoption agencies say.
When does this self-loathing end? I know people who have struggled with infertility; they just appreciate having a little kid to love. I can’t help but imagine the couples who rejected this infant. How does that thought process work? “Well, we can’t have a child of our own…but damn it if we settle for a dark one. We deserve more than that!â€
So do babies like Livya. I hope her parents don’t tell her anything about this aspect of her past; I’m glad she was adopted by two people who looked at her and saw a toddler vs. a dark, undesirable object.
.
Thanks for leaving this on the News Tab, duax0001.
Agreed, but I am also arguing that it is an incorrect formulation of the problem, especially the false zero-sum choice. There are ways to get to “we +2, world +2”, addressing fundamental problems will probably help much more than some adoption policies, although the latter is the kind of emotional dichotomy on which politics turns.
Hey, my example wasn’t “zero-sum”!! 😉 But, yes, I agree that we shouldn’t be quick to accept that things can’t be positive-sum for all!
Correct, and that wasn’t the aspect I intended to highlight, as much as the either-or nature. But I think we’re agreed 🙂
ROFL. It is like how people would advertise that even though they are Brahmin they are not “casteist”..
🙂
I think on looking at the pictures I’m dark like Obama . unlike Kofi Annan .
Talent on the Street I dont think she is Punjabi http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYBvapuC4P4
Actually, one of Parvati’s names is Gauri, which, I was told, means “fair,” so either both Shiva and Parvati are fair, or Shiva is dark and Parvati is fair… I’ve seen Shiva depicted both ways.
Of course, you’ve also got the Amar Chitra Katha depiction, which makes Shiva this extremely interesting purple color.
Even in the Mahabharata, some of the most beautiful/handsome people in the story had dark skin… You’ve got Krishna, Arjuna (despite the meaning of his name, he is usually described as having a dusky complexion), and Draupadi…
Let’s see if this works–p 292 ff., Doniger reviews some Indian myths on Shiva’s skin color:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KfA9ByNVjZ8C&printsec=frontcover
Read the link
http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112007/punjabi.htm
As most of you can corroborate, I have a dark side.
M. Nam
Rahul, my point is around the argument that “foreign” parents want to take on children with severe illnesses or challenges. This is simply untrue in the domestic context (while it may be true in the international context). I’m going to ignore Levitt’s racial argument because I think it is poorly thought out, is based on some really wack assumptions, and reinforces problematic paradigms.
There are a LOT of barriers to adoption in the U.S. Both the process, the rights of the birth-parent, and the politics (e.g., preference to couples, specifically heterosexual couples, race-matching, etc.) are painful and deep. I just think it’s a joke to pretend that there isn’t a large supply of children in need of attention and high levels of care in the pool of adoption-eligible children in the U.S.
4 · razib said
As an Indian American child (previously in my life), I can say for certain (at least according to the pics, unless my parents swapped me for another kid 10 or so years ago) that I was a plump child. Therefore, you’re plumpitude theory may not be completely accurate. My family has experienced a rash of baby making and all of those children are fairly skinny, so maybe I’m an exception rather than the rule.
I’m sorry in advance if I screwed up the block quote, I’m pretty new to this.
ANNA’s headline: “Everyone wants a little Punjabi”
We actually preferred Bengali when adopting our daughter, primarily for the vastly superior Bengali intellect and culture (Raja Ram Mohan Rai, Vivekananda, Tagore, Ray, you know). I wish we had named her Gogol, but Jhumpa was not a famous author when we adopted our daughter 15 years ago.
I am being facetious about the Bengali intellect and culture.
On a more serious note, the motives for adopting children with special needs and children who are “normal” are quite different. We have sought out and fraternized with all types of adoptive parents. It is a club. People who adopt special needs children are in it for more than just the parenthood experience. We have white friends who already had their own biological children but still adopted African American children born with various conditions. Such people want to make a difference in this world – and “topis” off to them – whereas the run-of-the-mill folks like us have no such lofty ideals. We are just ordinary people wanting to share our ordinary lives with equally ordinary children.
If one does not differentiate between the two types of people, one runs the risk of unfairly denouncing the less idealistic types for being just plain human. It is also human, at least in the color-driven Indian society, to want fairer babies. Heck, they want fairer brides, too. I personally am not condoning it, but it is a part of the Indian culture. Again, this is merely to frame the adoption issues within a larger sociocultural context.
There is one Bengali trait my daughter does have. If she doesn’t like the rules, she won’t just break them. She argues with you until you change them. Bengalis are the ultimate argumentative Indians. Thank you, Amartya Sen, who is another great Bengali.
112 Floridian: “…Bengali intellect and culture (Raja Ram Mohan Rai, Vivekananda, Tagore, Ray, you know).”
Forgot razib.
So what are the origins of this preference for lighter skin?
It seems like a global phenomenon, predating “western imperialism”. What occurred in the annals of history that made lighter skin preferable and how did this idea spread?
From the little that I know, the only probable reason that there are light skinned people in the first place is because of a mutuation which conferred an advantage in environments where there was precious little UV light and dietary sources of vitamin D.
In Sri Lanka the term black (kalu) is used as a term of endearment. Kalu malli (black little brother), kalu maamaa (black uncle), kalu nenda (black aunty), kalu putaa (black son), kalu seeyaa (black grandfather) are commonly used as terms of endearment. A dark baby is often called kalu bole (black ball). The term sudu (white) is also used in a similar fashion.
I had a conversation with a friend, social worker, that works in the foster system. She told me that there are a ridiculous amount of healthy black babies that aren’t getting adopted. I’m not sure if most people who adopt an American baby are adopting b/c they have fertility issues or want to do some good in the world.
Personally, if you can’t have a baby on your own — why the hell be so picky???
Raises hand I’ll take any healthy baby. Send them my way!
Or save the world one third world baby at a time 🙂
my big fat punjabi family in india (apart from disfiguring my face from the constant cheek pulling by loud 10-tola-sona-wearing-fugly-aunties;) has unfortunately had quite a sick history of internal baby-trading. three couples – and not childless btw, two of them already had a girl – adopted ‘extra’ baby boys from others in the family.
seriously.
so if i had to guess i would think these ‘punjabi-baby seekers’ are likely your avg. gender-biased north indian couple who probably couldn’t find a male child to adopt in their extended families (and possibly after several rounds of infertility clinics and generic-punjabi-‘mata’-worshipping;) turned to adoption!
so if i had to guess i would think these ‘punjabi-baby seekers’ are likely your avg. gender-biased north indian couple who probably couldn’t find a male child to adopt in their extended families
good guess
Please submit news tips, requests or story ideas to either the News Tab or, if it is more convenient for you, email the tip line. We appreciate your help. Thanks!
I know a few people who have adopted from India – all regions, and they are very blessed to have the beautiful children. Doesn’t matter whether the child is from Punjab, Chennai, or whatever.
I’m a Southie (Telugu origin) who will state for the record that I have dark skin. I will tell you like it is. (In reference to posts like #44) No wheatish, no straw colored, or whatever p.c. term for real dark, naturally deep tanned skin. I obviously inherited it from my mother who was teased mercilessly in India by her idiot relatives- of all people. I guess it (the color) didn’t stop my father from marrying her even though he has fair skin w/pale colored eyes. However, some idiotic relatives of his were complaining (early in the marriage) that the offspring will inherit the hideously dark skin color of the mother, which is true. Never mind that some of the spawn of these idiots had kids that ended up darker than me many years later.
Growing up in the midwest (and west coast later on) in mostly white communities, I would hear mostly negative comments about my skin tone. There were a few who said they wish they could be as tan/dark as I was, but they were in the minority. Maybe things have changed, but I still believe it is hard for people to give up prejudices/etc. I think the younger generations are getting a bit better in their attitudes towards minorities and those who are different in appearance. Correct me if I am wrong about this.
To all of my dark sisters and brothers, don’t worry about stupid racist comments/nasty looks now because there will be some benefits later on in life. I find that my skin is way less wrinkled and less saggy (I’m in my very early 40’s. The word early is very important!) compared to those with melanin challenged skin that are much younger to me. Some people find it hard to believe that I am in my 40’s. I haven’t used sunscreen (just could not stand the heavy feeling), and i don’t use any anti wrinkle creams, no covering makeup, don’t go for botox, etc. (My jet black hair has never ever been dyed even once in my life and that can contribute to a youthful look.)
One of my husband’s friends once said (his friend is African American so he can get away with it) that “Black don’t crack”. Those three words are true, in my opinion. When you see any older person of color (Desis, Africans, African Americans, etc), their skin just does not show the signs of aging as quickly as the fairer race. (Unless the fair skinned have gone for botox, face lifts, etc. )
Also, I’d like to respond to the comment that Tamil sounds just like Telugu or vice versa. To my somewhat experienced ears, both languages have very distinct sounds. (Just like disco music versus country western music or punk.) Even Telugu sounds quite different to Kannada, in my opinion. Maybe to some Northies, all Southies look alike.
There will be arrogance, prejudice and stupidity in all cultural/ethnic/etc groups, but that is another topic! Some people need to find something that will make them feel superior to other groups.
Correction in my last post, I meant to say the kids of my father’s siblings & not their grandkids as the wording erroneously implies. Although a couple of their grandkids do have gloriously darker skin (even compared to mine.) They are adorable, but I wonder what is going on now in the minds of their parents and grandparents after making unsavory comments about dark skin many years/decades earlier.
Personally, I am not hung up on skin tones, and I never really think much about it. But when it is brought to my attention out of the blue, i need to give my .02.
wealth – rather the indication of wealth. If you are poor in India you are likely to be in the sun all day long toiling away – if you are rich, you stay indoors which lightens your skin colour. till the early 20th century, there was a premium on fair skin in the Western world as well. Later,a tanned skin became the mark of a person of leisure and only the rich can have a life of leisure.
At least this is the only explanation that makes sense to me.
76 · A N N A said
I always thought that Shiva and Krishna were dark, although depicted as “blue” because they were “blue-black” (i.e. someone who was so black that he/she looks “blue”). I know that’s a southern African-American term for a very dark-skinned black person, but it seemed so perfect in this situation.
This is a common practice from back in the day when it was rare for women to inherit property/assets/wealth (which was apparently the norm even when my dadaji died in the 1960s). It was a way for “heir-less” families to keep the wealth in the family without having to “adopt out.” There are certainly a lot of problems with this concept in the present day when primogeniture and son-preference are not normative defaults.
Can you elaborate? The fact that this is problematic does not mean it isn’t true, and there is tons of anecdotal evidence both from my personal observations as well as observations by prominent blacks that this is an issue. Even Obama talks extensively about the conflicts he went through as a result of his identity crisis, and he wasn’t even adopted (although he was – to describe it loosely – abandoned by his biological father). And for an adoptive parent to believe that, on the balance, this conflict could become a very problematic issue, is not unreasonable, I think.
razib @ 8:
when parents mentioned that telugu sounded like tamil to their ears at a party where most people were from andhara pradesh they had their heads ripped off. welcome to the brown-great-chain-of-being.
Stop speaking out of your ass, razib. Why the fuck do we have to put up with your/your parents ‘all south indian languages sound the same’ bullshit? And, why do you automatically assume that Telugus don’t want to be called Madarasis becuase they think they are better than the Tamils. It’s because we don’t want to be all clubbed together under one convenient label by dumbasses like you.
Okay I agree; I have a friend, rajasathani abd and she is really into south indian guys and apparently south indian culture…and she has a tendancy to lump all south indians together. When I protest sometimes and say how something relates to my specific state in india, she just seems confused – it’s like she just can’t comprehend that even though tamils and malyalees are in the south, we’re not identical in everything. Even though it’s easy for her to distinguish rajasthani and punjabi uniqueness.
Look just b/c some of us point out we’re light or not madrasi doesn’t mean that we think being dark is bad or madrasi. I don’t get why people here just jump to these conclusions. Especially this whole madrasi thing…I’ve hardly had any contact with tamils; there’s lots of things that I know about my background and maybe I’d like that to be noticed and not b/c I don’t want to be seen as a tamil or punjabi or muslim or whatever. I think some of you read too much into people’s statements.
128 · harpr33t said
Please to not be spamming. Thank you.
“I always thought that Shiva and Krishna were dark, although depicted as “blue” because they were “blue-black” (i.e. someone who was so black that he/she looks “blue”). I know that’s a southern African-American term for a very dark-skinned black person, but it seemed so perfect in this situation.
I think that krishna has always been described as dark-the color of midnight, “Shyam Sundar” (although shyam here means evening?) etc. In northern india, his statue is often black while Radha is pure white. Although, quite a few modern temples have white marble krishnas as well. Kali, I think is also called “Shyama” sometimes.
Shiva is a bit different though-he can depicted as quite dark, but in Tamil Nadu, his sculptures in the larger temples are often have a light golden colored hue, or sometimes a light periwinkle while Parvati is green-skinned (which is oddly unique to TN). In Srisailam, in Andhra, he is called “the lord as white as jasmine”. I think it just depended on how whatever group decided to depict him.
123 · melbourne desi said
Close, not wealth, but a good off-spring provider. Someone who is probably healthier and more hygenic than the average farm working dark skinned lass. The same reason older men prefer young ladies, and ladies prefer wealthy men. It is the ‘selfish-gene’ in all of us.
There’s also the factor of feeling more drawn to children who look more like us, I believe that’s evolved – perhaps Razib can clarify
no. there are reasons this is unlikely. it is much more likely that children tend to develop their own images of “normal” based on what they see around them, with proportionate weight to family. do you think that parents who marry someone of a different race are less attached or affinal to their own children because they look more different? there could be a small statistical effect, but likely not as a direct adaptation (because people were always around people of their own ethnic group for most of history anyway).
think some of you read too much into people’s statements.
yeah, totally…. 😉
re: skin color prejudice, it is a world-wide phenomenon. see peter frost’s work for a good bibliography. my own suspicion is that it has to due with social stratification and the correlation between dark skin and lower class identity because of greater sun exposure of the average peasant vs. the noble.
some data re: skin color A genome-wide association study of skin pigmentation in a South Asian population http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(07)63763-X
To empirically determine the top 20% and bottom 20% of the skin-reflectance distribution in the South Asian population, 98 randomly selected individuals of South Asian ancestry living in the United Kingdom were recruited and had skin chromameter measurements taken.
here’s the data by region and the number from the total set of the darkest and lighest 20% of the regional population (look at the ratios) Northwestern 75 247 Eastern 235 100 Southern 75 2
Mixed 10 34
Light skinned desi women actually are at an disadvantage because dark hair really stands out on the light skin especially on arms etc. which is not very attractive. You are better off being a white woman with golden/light brown hair which does not stand out or a darker skinned desi woman with dark hair which also does not stand out.
LOL.
Razib – if you had a child with someone of a different ethnicity, you’d still recognize some of your own features in the child, wouldn’t you? I can see the argument for this preference being culturally evolved or socialized, but it’s definitely “there” in my experience. Perhaps it’s just the vanity of a parent wanting a little version of themselves.
Razib – if you had a child with someone of a different ethnicity, you’d still recognize some of your own features in the child, wouldn’t you? I can see the argument for this preference being culturally evolved or socialized, but it’s definitely “there” in my experience. Perhaps it’s just the vanity of a parent wanting a little version of themselves.
sure. i guess i don’t see myself in brown people much. i suspect that’s a function of the fact that i was raised around mostly white people, and i don’t have a strong brown self-image. i’ve heard white people talk about the sort of stuff you are mentioning though. e.g., an acquaintance who bemoaned the fact that he wasn’t going to have blonde children with his japanese fiance (he was blonde). i don’t think such thoughts of racial identity, affinity and perpetuation are immoral or objectionable as such, but i have a hard time identifying with these sentiments, so of course i have a hard time identifying with the need or preference for a same-race adopted child. my main preference for biological children is that i suspect they’ll be less likely to be tarded than if i adopted. that is, i’m concerned more about their personality and intellectual orientation than their physical features being akin to my own. ultimately it comes down to a apportionment of the various values.
Razib, Yes!! Please have 10 kids. I will provide a (modest) subsidy once you get to #’s 6-10 (assuming I have signed off on the bride!) 😉
Razib – I see your point. A lot of people feel that way too (about intellectual ability, i.e.). It’s one of the arguments my mother always uses against my desire to adopt (“won’t you be frustrated if your child is just not bright?”). I just point to all the dumbasses that our fine pure family genes have produced 😉 On the ethnic mixing point, I’ve heard so many people say they want babies who’ll look like them (including one successful Indian model who lived in Paris for years and turned down some minor royal suitor because “my babies will be too pale” – seriously) that it doesn’t sound racist any more, though at some level it is.
But even when it comes to adoption, if I’m honest with myself I’ll admit the reason I want to adopt desi girls is not just altruistic, but is also because they’ll be “familiar.” There are probably more “deserving” sub-Saharan African babies when you think about it.
136 SP: “There are probably more ‘deserving’ sub-Saharan African babies when you think about it.”
Adoption needs to be decoupled from altruism. We don’t expect all fresh college graduates to dedicate their lives to toiling away for charitable organizations instead of fattening their wallets at investment banks, corporations and law firms. We don’t expect people trying to find life partners to first select from the needy, the disabled and the mentally challenged before turning their lustful eyes to normal, healthy people.
Similarly, elective parenthood is not about doing good or making the world a better place, except collaterally and incidentally as most legal and responsible human actions do anyway. Adoption is about wanting to be a parent, and nobody should have to apologize for that.
As an adoptive parent who has belonged to various groups of adoptive parents, I can assure you that over 95% of us suffer from no missionary zeal. We are neither that great, nor that bad.
An interesting point was raised by Razib (#134) about the guarantee of intelligence in a biological child versus an adopted one. Since that is your field, Razib, I will defer to your judgment, but I would be very curious to know: a) the statistical probability of the parents’ IQ transmitting more or less intact to their biological children b) the net result of two different IQ levels – the husband’s and wife’s – and how the final mix is determined in the child c) and how do you feel about the eternal debate between nature and nurture, being a very gene-oriented thinker yourself.
My final point, and one that is more apropos to the young, aspiring-parent laden demographics of this blog, is that you should feel free to adopt without guilt. If you wanted to save the whales, sub-Saharan babies, and build irrigation systems in the villages of Madhya Pradesh, we would admire you. If you became just another ordinary parent by adopting whomever you felt comfortable choosing, and you raised that child well, you would have still left the world a better place than you found it.
What’s wrong with associating guilt and shame to “selfish” choices?
as much as i don’t like it i’d have to say i’m more likely to agree with the isis papers or iceman’s inheritence’s outlandish racist explanations for the “origins of racism” (rooted in the cultural development of the indo-european peoples in pre-history) than this dark peasant vs fair noble theory. given the historically violent history of relations between “light skinned” populations and “dark skinned” populations, where invariably, the former have instigated the hostility towards the latter group, i find it hard to believe that it’s just a product of classism.
Razib-sahib,
I’m sorry that you “don’t have a strong-self image.” You should consider contributing to other blogs, because everyone of us here do have a strong-self image, in general, and a brown one in particular.
134 · razib said
Floridian – a lot of people adopt because they just want to be parents (sometimes because they haven’t been able to have children of their own), a lot adopt because they think it’s the right thing to do. I grew up feeling committed to the idea of adoption as ethical, you can blame earnest Nehruvian ads about overpopulation and pictures of kids starving in orphanages for that. So when you make the decision to adopt because it’s a good thing to do, you in some way give up your vanity and desire to have a little mini-me, whether that means a kid who looks like you or has the same intellectual or personality traits as you. Once you’re down that path, it doesn’t seem to make sense to pick a child on the basis of vanity points like looks or skin colour or whatever. And yet we do that. I think the comparison to choosing a partner is a good one, but we all know that every child in an orphanage is just as deserving of a loving home as any other, and we don’t really have anything except superficial characteristics like appearance to go on, but those are inevitably superficial. Oh well, I suppose there’s no way around it.
An interesting point was raised by Razib (#134) about the guarantee of intelligence in a biological child versus an adopted one. Since that is your field, Razib, I will defer to your judgment, but I would be very curious to know:
assume heritability is 50%, that is, half the population level variation is due to genes of a trait. here’s the formula you’d probably use:
((average of parents’ IQ) – population median)/2 = expected median of offspring, assume a 15 point standard deviation
in words, if you have two parents with an average IQ of 130 and the population average is 100, the expectation is that children will have an IQ of 115. there is about a 15 point standard deviation around this average. to maximize the possibility of non-tardish children high IQ individuals should probably have several children since there is a good chance that there will tards regressing to the mean. google ‘breeder’s equation’ for more info on how these sorts of things work.
I just point to all the dumbasses that our fine pure family genes have produced 😉 On the ethnic mixing point, I’ve heard so many people say they want babies who’ll look like them (including one successful Indian model who lived in Paris for years and turned down some minor royal suitor because “my babies will be too pale” – seriously) that it doesn’t sound racist any more, though at some level it is.
the coefficient of relatedness to a cousin is 1/8, vs. 1/2 to a sibling or parent (1/4 to an uncle or aunt). the point being is that family gives you some information, but near family gives you the most. i have tards and non-tards in my extended family as well, but it isn’t like there is an orthogenetic principle where my offspring have to regress to the tardish mean by necessity. else we wouldn’t have any evolutionary process within species.
as for sounding racist, of course it isn’t racist
I’m sorry that you “don’t have a strong-self image.” You should consider contributing to other blogs, because everyone of us here do have a strong-self image, in general, and a brown one in particular.
keep the race strong my brother! (speaking of tards….)
given the historically violent history of relations between “light skinned” populations and “dark skinned” populations, where invariably, the former have instigated the hostility towards the latter group, i find it hard to believe that it’s just a product of classism.
exactly. when the arabs & berbers conquered spain, the turks conquered the balkans, the romans conquered the northern europeans, when the tatars conquered the russians, when the yemenis conquered the ethiopians. light skinnned people always conquer dark skinned people (speaking of tards….)
html breakage. i mean, as for sounding racist, of course it isn’t racist, if you are non-white. white people are of course racist when they don’t want to breed with the color to keep their phenotype pure.
when the yemenis conquered the ethiopians.
invert. meant the 5th century conquest of yemen by the ethiopian monarchy.
i didn’t state that “light skinned people always conquer dark skinned people” but that’s something you assumed, partly because i wasn’t clear and specific enough in what i stated … my apologies.
so let me be clear and specific, i am speaking of the hostility on the basis of skin colour alone, where upon initial contact a “light skinned” population was excessively hostile to a “dark skinned” population. where is an example of color-based caste system that favors the dark skinned?
almost all of the examples you cited are of groups conquering other groups where the differences in skin tone were minimal at best, so skin colour was hardly the most strikingly obvious difference between the groups.
there’s no need for name calling.
Erm, why is it not racist if you are non-white? A fear of ethnic mixing is racist by definition, no, whether or not one is doing it out of a sense of superiority?
I have mixed feelings about this.
On the one hand I think alot of people would feel shocked and offended that adoptive parents have a skin tone preference, or any sort of looks based preference for adopting a child. Yet we seem to more comfortable with such preferences when it comes to adults choosing mates;
I like women with long hair.
I prefer Sikh men sans turban and beard.
I could never date a man shorter than me.
I could never date a woman taller than me.
I like the tall, dark and handsome look.
I prefer blonde hair, blue eyes.
She doesn’t dress “traditional” enough for our family.
I refuse to marry a village guy in a dhoti.
The list goes on and on………………
is that true? I thought the berbers were darkskinned compared to the visigoths of spain at that time.
Razib is being sarcastic!!
Sorry to be late and wordy but…
Rahul, This is not true. Asian kids adopted into white families do have problems. Documentary clip here. I think a lot of families are fooled by the fact that the kids have white skin. (Likewise, Google “russian”, “adoptees”, and “killed”.) It’s not just a black problem. I think the difference is, black people in general, for numerous reasons, are pitted against the majority (white) culture in far too many ways to count, and the language of that conflict has been reworked and rewoven into the American fabric for so long and in so many ways, it’s easy to give voice to it. Here’s another clip where an Asian guy talks about the distortion of beauty for as a transracial adoptee.
As someone who will probably adopt in the future, I don’t have any plans to adopt a child with physical or mental challenges though I am not opposed to adopting an older child. I realize that it is a relatively shallow decision on my part but I also have no delusions about my choice. I know my personality and limitations. Raising any kids at all would be quite a big feat and I’d hate to complicate that unnecessarily.
How’s this for racial issues? I don’t think most white people should adopt a non-white child. There I said it. I wish I had a transracial adoption agency. On page one of the application it would have three questions: 1. America is a melting pot. True or False. 2. It doesn’t matter what color you are. True or False. 3. White privilege was made up by politically correct liberals. True or False. Page two would say, “If you answered ‘yes’ to any of the above questions, thank you for your interest but we will not be able to approve your application at this time.”
Adoption is hard on kids and just as in parenting one’s biological children, it’s up to the parents to make the environment in which they raise their kids the most conducive to doing that. It means making sacrifices. For people used to being the majority who are parents of minority kids, it will mean putting themselves in situations where they are no longer the majority.
Side note: Lighter skin as an indication of health and hygiene…WTH?