You're viewing a single thread.
Idk how the general public viewed India 40 years ago, but from my vague understanding of their modern history they've always been known for a cruel caste system resulting in poverty and disease, which was massaged by the English introducing more widespread transportation and education but castes and disparity still persists after several revolutions. Don't get me wrong, the English were cruel and apathetic, but clearly the locals learned a lot from them in good and bad ways both.
I recently learned about CPI parties of India but they also ingrain religion into their politics? That sounds like one step forward two steps back. I'd love to see more Indian politics and international news in the news and politics communities on Lemmy, sounds like a lot is going on over there and I'm getting real sick of hearing about Taylor Swift's jet and Biden's Cookies.
Oh and also, skin whitening cream is pretty fucked imo. I saw a story awhile back where a famous light skinned actress played an ethnic minority role where they blackfaced and lived in filth, clearly something is wrong there.
Skin whitening is not unlike tanning in the west, an indication of status/wealth. In India lighter skin shows you don't need to work outside. In the west tan skin shows you can take vacations.
And in both cases people fake it with creams and tanning salons. And it becomes so entrenched people don't realize why they are actually doing it. Just like makeup and clothing choices.
Yes, there are problematic racial undertones...and in general is definitely fucked up...but I think it's more complicated than just a race thing. I mean, people in the West are literally exposing themselves to cancer causing UV to fake the look of having recently taken a trip to Hawaii or whatever, which is also kinda fucked up.
Pretty sure lighter complexion in non-white countries is status symbol in the same way tanning is among white Westerners. You don't need to work outside means you are affluent enough not to do so. Getting tanned means you are also affluent enough to go on holidays abroad to somewhere exotic.
Before the European colonisation in non-white majority countries, light skin has always been seen as status symbol. The racial aspect came later upon Western colonialism.
Yes, that's exactly what I said.
In the west tan skin shows you can take vacations.
What? I see a dude with a tan in the middle of winter and I automatically think "he spends way to much time in tanning booths" and "that's a lot of skin damage". I never once thought "that guy can afford vacations". If that's the effect they're going for they need better PR.
Spray on tans are also frowned upon, where I'm from. But the natural production of pigment in response to sunlight isn't nearly comparable to chemically changing tones or caking on makeup to hide your ethnicity.
I still don't see them on the same level as attempting to change ones race as a show of wealth. People should see the beauty of their natural skin.
UV Radiation is required to produce Vitamin D, the World Health Organization recommends a minimum of 5 minutes of direct sunlight exposure a week to avoid deficiency.
Your take away from what I wrote was that I think people should never expose themselves to the sun/UV? The benefits of moderate UV exposure are completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
I just explained how they are comparable and really don't know what else to tell you. Maybe someone else can give it a go.
Why do you need to give it a go? Why are you defending the practice of skin whitening creams?
I'm not in any way shape or form doing that. This is abundantly clear from what I wrote.
I was only comparing cosmetic skin whitening to cosmetic skin darkening, since they are completely comparable and I have already explained how.
But the natural production of pigment in response to sunlight isn't nearly comparable to chemically changing tones or caking on makeup to hide your ethnicity.
My asian "whitening creams" are called "brightening creams" in the West. They remove redness. They don't chemically alter your ethnicity.
Sounds like a cope.
You sound like an a-hole. How does it feel to be bluntly communicated with?
I attacked their stance, you attacked my person. I feel very superior as a result.
I think you're missing the point.
Some cultures find tanned skin to be beautiful, others find light skin to be beautiful.
In either case, wealthier people can achieve either darker or lighter skin by spending more or less time in the sun.
Poorer people who's length of exposure to the sun is a function of their work, can emulate lighter or darker skin with various lotions and potions.
I think a more utilitarian and functional approach to beauty standards would be better for everyone. Paler is less healthy, so is being overly tanned, natural is best. People can be lighter or darker to a certain extent but their natural pigmentation has a range defined by their racial characteristics, and they should never be ashamed or disgusted of their natural tone. To say lighter or darker is more beautiful is racism, simple as.
You sound like a real idiot.
People will perceive beauty according to societal and cultural norms established over millennia.
You can't tell someone what they ought to find beautiful.
It's not racist, given that we're taking about variations within a single race, not comparisons between races.
Some cultures perceive being fat or skinny differently because of the correlation of wealth which changes between impoverished nations and developed nations. Being overly fat or thin purely for cosmetic purposes is almost universally shunned by progressive movements because it is factually and objectively worse than a healthy weight. Skin Tone will be the same way. Future generations will look back and agree with me on this.
Imposing your own ideas on what other cultures ought to feel is the height of arrogance.
Similarly, it's incredibly arrogant to presume that your own "enlightened" attitudes will be more prevalent in the future.
A culture of harm and racism, that sorts people into class by lightness of skin, needs to be imposed over with discrimination of equal or greater measure. Tolerance for the intolerant is unacceptable. Maybe India doesn't see the necessity compared to countries with much more violent racial tensions, but it's a lesson that can be learned an easy way or a hard way.
Nonsense. You're just parroting catch phrases. Perceptions of beauty are not "intolerance".
I sincerely hope that future generations are less judgemental and ready to label those people they don't really understand.
Honestly, just observe other cultures without trying to assess whether they're good or bad. They just are the way they are.