• rtxn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    96
    ·
    9 months ago

    I think I missed the “mysticism and spirituality” period. Twenty years ago I knew India for cows, castes, and crap in the rivers.

    • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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.

        • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

            • Rediphile@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

        • EssentialCoffee@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

        • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

            • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

      • TankovayaDiviziya@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

      • Leviathan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

    • phx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Yeah, but it’s often in the form of a YouTube video with narration that’s not always so easy to understand. I miss written tutorials, but most of the good ones I find these days tend to come from Central/Eastern European forum posts.

  • Kanda@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    9 months ago

    I guess Germany after the 30’s (and maybe even after 1919), France after the whole Revolution and Napoleon thing, the UK after voting to KEKW their economy, Norway after being ruled by Sweden… The list probably goes on

    • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      9 months ago

      Which french revolution? ;) There’s lots of people who saw and still see the whole french revolution thing as a net positive. The UK has never had a good proper revolution and it shows.

      Napoleon did a lot of things, but those bad things were in line with the absolutist rulers from before the revolution, he just happened to be more successful at it. But he also did many good things during his rule. Fe, the Napoleonic code was hugely influential worldwide and a major change for the good. 2 centuries later it doesn’t hold up as well in the countries that still use the same justice system, but for it’s time, it was really good. Overall, I’d say Napoleon still has a stellar reputation, unlike India.

      How was Norway worse after they last gained independence from Sweden?

        • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          I’m discounting that one yes. The powerful politicians that came out on top (all who were already upper class and power brokers beforehand), called it a revolution, but there was no class/societal upheaval, redistribution of wealth/land or anything else like happened in the many popular revolutions in Paris. It was just a change of government with some help from a foreign power at the end. A forced change of government or coup d’etat can alo be called a revolution, but it’s pretty obvious that it’s not the same thing as fe the 1789 revolution in Paris.

          I’ll refine my previous statement: what the UK needs is a good proper popular revolution.

      • Kanda@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        A lot of good came out of it in the end, but I doubt the French felt great after the battle at Waterloo and the resulting peace treaty

        • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          For France that was a great peace treaty, way better than what many French people would have expected, Talleyrand had worked wonders. After Waterloo there were many who would have wanted a complete dismemberment of France, but instead the pre Waterloo negotiations were followed and a relatively strong state was created, with all the territorial gains of Louis 14 left intact.

          That peace was also far better for French people than Napoleon’s endless large scale wars of the prior 15 years. It’s that massive death toll that we should blame Napoleon for, not the treaty of Vienna. And after a bit of a respite, the french did kick out the Bourbons again, so that peace did work out ok for France. It was easily a far better peace than the “peace” of Versailles after WW1.

          • Kanda@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            Yeah I guess you’re right that it came out about as well as it possibly could for France. I still feel there was a significant bit of humiliation at play for the great power that France was at the time, but then again it took a coalition to get there and this was an army of a country torn between monarchists and republicans.

      • lemmingrad@thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        The UK had to murder his king to get a parliament though :D and tbh the french revolution was a great moment, but also a hugely violent one, and the people did not prevail. The liberals did.

        • systemglitch@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          It’s still a leadership issue and not a people issue. I can see why someone would want to relate the two, but it’s not a just comparison on this case.

  • SuperSaiyanSwag@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is insanely relevant to me right now. I left India in 2004 and I am there right now for my cousins wedding. I legit hate it everywhere I look. Love my family, but idk if I want to come back.

    • Clbull@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      America has been full of New Thought/LoA grifters like these too: Neville Goddard, Napoleon Hill, Joseph Murphy, to name a few.

  • lemmingrad@thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    9 months ago

    So we switched from exotic fetichizing orientalism toward casual racism? Sounds like two pieces of the same coin.