Why is it "high status" to be white?

[Dimentio]

I have noticed a tendency, and that is that in Mediterranean or Middle Eastern areas, nationalists use to single out those who are perceived as "darker" than themselves. I have for example seen Greeks accusing Turks of being black, Turks accusing Kurds of it, as well as Persians accusing Arabs of that.

But I have never seen someone accuse someone of being more white than themselves. It is really quite strange.

[fiddlesticks]

Maybe it is because white people have never been opressed by anyone besides other white people..good question.

[jake williams]

Basically I think it's historical: I don't know if you're implying if it's something other than the historical (and arbitrary) hegemony of white people, but I don't think it is.

[Black Dagger]

I have noticed a tendency, and that is that in Mediterranean or Middle Eastern areas, nationalists use to single out those who are perceived as "darker" than themselves. I have for example seen Greeks accusing Turks of being black, Turks accusing Kurds of it, as well as Persians accusing Arabs of that.

But I have never seen someone accuse someone of being more white than themselves. It is really quite strange.

I don't i think i understand the question. Why don't racists try to disparage other groups by calling them 'white'? :blink:

[Mujer Libre]

But I have never seen someone accuse someone of being more white than themselves.While I agree that 'darkness' is generally considered desirable, especially smongst former colonial people (for historical reasons I suppose, but also cultural reasons in places like India) have you ever heard of the insult "coconut?" It's not literal, but accuses a person of wanting/trying to be white.

[Comrade Blaze]

:blink:

[Dimentio]

While I agree that 'darkness' is generally considered desirable, especially smongst former colonial people (for historical reasons I suppose, but also cultural reasons in places like India) have you ever heard of the insult "coconut?" It's not literal, but accuses a person of wanting/trying to be white.

Yes. There are some animosities in former colonies towards white people in general. But as soon as a fascist movement plops up in a Mediterranean, Middle Eastern or Asian country, it starts to claim superiority over neighbouring peoples on the basis of their somewhat darker skin tone. I find it strange.

I have even seen Mexican fascists attacking Central Americans as "darkskins" :confused:

[Mujer Libre]

There is animosity, but there's also this weird tendency amongst formerly colonised peoples to idolise their ex-oppressors as the pinnacle of civilisation.

From my personal experiences this is done by lots of Indian and South African people. I also remember having a discussion with my host-family in Ireland and they said it's much the same there. They have a lot of anger towards the English, but also have this almost subconscious desire to emulate them in order to prove themselves.

Maybe there's also an element of emulating old power structures in organised racist movements in non-white areas? Proving yourself superior (end therefore ;liberating' yourself from oppression) by oppressing other people. (excuse the poorly worded sentences) I don't know... it's a very complex issue.

[Itis]

I think you should be careful not to hastily simply see this phenomenon as formerly oppressed people trying to be white. I think it's not so much a case of Meditaeranean and Middle Eastern people trying to be portray themselves as white, but simply Meditaeranean and Middle Eastern people trying to portray their historical enemies as being part African.

Another example of this is between Macedonians and Greeks, Macedonians saying that Greeks are partly the product of Ethiopian genetics via an ancient slave trade. I think this general story of a lighter population of that area accusing a neighbouring slightly darker population of being part African (via an ancient or more recent slave trade) is a pretty common pattern in this area. Ultimately it is anti black African racism and not necessarily white supremacist racism.

[MarxSchmarx]

Another example of this is between Macedonians and Greeks, Macedonians saying that Greeks are partly the product of Ethiopian genetics via an ancient slave trade. I think this general story of a lighter population of that area accusing a neighbouring slightly darker population of being part African (via an ancient or more recent slave trade) is a pretty common pattern in this area. Ultimately it is anti black African racism and not necessarily white supremacist racist.

But it involves white supremacist values everywhere. Indeed, the reason hierarchies among "shades of color" exist in the first place is because these hierarchies within races almost universally mimic the hierarchies inherent in broader society between races. This is true not only in basically every new world society, but also in the former USSR, for example, where there are "shades of European-ness" versus "shades of Asian-ness".

The same trend is found wherever there was once a dominant group. For instance, in Vietnam, where Han Chinese culture was dominant for centuries, ethnic groups were classified according to how "Han" they were, just as the Han distinguished between themselves and the aggregated "vietnamese".

[Bitter Ashes]

I have noticed a tendency, and that is that in Mediterranean or Middle Eastern areas, nationalists use to single out those who are perceived as "darker" than themselves. I have for example seen Greeks accusing Turks of being black, Turks accusing Kurds of it, as well as Persians accusing Arabs of that.

But I have never seen someone accuse someone of being more white than themselves. It is really quite strange.
At one point of British history it was actualy seen as desirable in women to be a pale as possible. You may have seen those pictures of Victorian women with those frilly little umbrellas to protect themselves from the sun. It really was a case of a tan bieng highly undesirable. I remember reading a play at school and that catching my attention when one of the characters used the fact that another character didn't look like a bleached slab of marble as an insult.

Not sure if this counts though as it was a situation of white vs white(er).

[Guerrilla22]

In the US it's a privelleged position to be white. The Europeans that arrived here and their subsequent ancestors asserted dominance through a variety of maeans and white privlellege eventually became institutuionalized.

[Dimentio]

There is animosity, but there's also this weird tendency amongst formerly colonised peoples to idolise their ex-oppressors as the pinnacle of civilisation.

From my personal experiences this is done by lots of Indian and South African people. I also remember having a discussion with my host-family in Ireland and they said it's much the same there. They have a lot of anger towards the English, but also have this almost subconscious desire to emulate them in order to prove themselves.

Maybe there's also an element of emulating old power structures in organised racist movements in non-white areas? Proving yourself superior (end therefore ;liberating' yourself from oppression) by oppressing other people. (excuse the poorly worded sentences) I don't know... it's a very complex issue.

I know that in Israel, there was an underground subculture in the 1950's and 1960's with drawn BD/SM pornography showing nazis raping Jewish prisoners. And then I start to think on the now restricted member "benhur" XD

[F9]

I guess Mediterranean people are idiots:lol:
Tbh, the point of color in the greek vs turk conflict between nationalists is something i havent heard of!!I dont know if thats because in cyprus there isnt one specific "type" of people, as it is placed in bettween africa, asia and europe and you can see specifics of each "type" to different persons, and there isnt one most common "type" as is the case in most countries of the world, but our local idiots, ehh i mean nationalists, i have never heard of talking about turks as the "black ones"..Frankly is something we hava avoid due to the general personal characteristics of the island.
For me this "more black" "more white" difference and a word on nationalist is honestly something "new" and something i do not hear.

Fuserg9:star:

[bricolage]

But I have never seen someone accuse someone of being more white than themselves. It is really quite strange.

Under the Belgian Empire it was believed the Tutsis had originated from Ethiopia and were part of the supposed 'Hamitic race' and were promoted as superior to the Hutus and other tribes. Primarily this ignored the fact that Hutu/Tutsi differences had historically been peasant vs pastoral. Skip forward a good few decades and people like Ferdinand Nahimana flipped this around arguing the Hutus were superior to the Tutsis as they were truly indigenous and the Tutsis were not authentically African, the rest is well known. Of course this is a very simplistic analyis and I don't think anyone ever doubted the skin colour of the Tutsis but in this situation being African and being black were viewed as essentially congruent so when the Tutsis were accused of being less African than the Hutus they were essentially being accused of being more white than them. It's an interesting case.

[Itis]

But it involves white supremacist values everywhere.

Seeing black africans as inferior does not necessarily equate to holding whites as superior. I don't think that (for example) these persians claiming superiority over arabs due to their supposed "blackness" would necessarily be white supremacist - I see no evidence that these Persians would in turn believe that people who are "whiter" than persians are superior to persians. To be white supremacy it must hold that "whites" are superior to "non-whites". If these Persians were to believe that they were also racially superior to whites (or even equal to whites) then it couldn't be called white supremacy unless these persians considered themselves as white as the whitest of whites.

Is there any evidence that any of these people making the claims in the first post hold white supremacist values? Do any of these claimants consider themselves "white"?

[Dimentio]

Seeing black africans as inferior does not necessarily equate to holding whites as superior. I don't think that (for example) these persians claiming superiority over arabs due to their supposed "blackness" would necessarily be white supremacist - I see no evidence that these Persians would in turn believe that people who are "whiter" than persians are superior to persians. To be white supremacy it must hold that "whites" are superior to "non-whites". If these Persians were to believe that they were also racially superior to whites (or even equal to whites) then it couldn't be called white supremacy unless these persians considered themselves as white as the whitest of whites.

Is there any evidence that any of these people making the claims in the first post hold white supremacist values? Do any of these claimants consider themselves "white"?

I have seen Persian nationalists trying to become friends with nazis on the internet on the basis of the fact that Iran is supposed to be Aryan. I have also seen nazis worship India, Afghanistan and Iran on the basis of the Aryanness of these countries (as well as that India has hinduism and castes, and that Iran has a president who nazis see as one of them :lol:).

[ls]

I've experienced this only in a way of an Indian guy saying that because he had lighter skin, he was better than some other Indian guy who he was arguing with (this when I was quite young).

Anyways it is supposed to be quite common, I think that it's pretty disgusting really, however it's funny to think that many of the super-white skinned British folks I know actually aspire to have a nice tan.

There is quite a bit of racism in the Turkish community around where I live and it's largely linked to Turkish "ultra-nationalism". It is white supremacism from what pretty much.. and has led to some quite sickening racial violence too.

So no I don't think this is just anti-some people rhetoric, it's a big problem and it's pretty disgusting.

[ls]

Seeing black africans as inferior does not necessarily equate to holding whites as superior. I don't think that (for example) these persians claiming superiority over arabs due to their supposed "blackness" would necessarily be white supremacist - I see no evidence that these Persians would in turn believe that people who are "whiter" than persians are superior to persians. To be white supremacy it must hold that "whites" are superior to "non-whites". If these Persians were to believe that they were also racially superior to whites (or even equal to whites) then it couldn't be called white supremacy unless these persians considered themselves as white as the whitest of whites.

Is there any evidence that any of these people making the claims in the first post hold white supremacist values? Do any of these claimants consider themselves "white"?

Does it actually matter? Ultra-nationalism may not exactly be Nazism but in some ways you could say it's worse, as it disguises some of the most horrible ideas under a guise of the flag and a flag alone. National socialism in some ways is more open about its premises.

[Misanthrope]

Meanwhile, women in America risk getting skin cancer trying to get darker skin.

:blink:

[Module]

It's often brought up that in the West white people want to look tanned, which is ironic considering the white-supremacist elements of the culture.
But, really, it has nothing to do with race. People who want to look tanned don't want to look 'more black' or 'less white', they just want to look tanned.
i.e. they want to look like they get out in the sun, go on holiday to exotic locations, and generally have exciting, modern lives where they don't stay inside all the time. That's all it's about. Looking hip, healthy, young and glossy.
It doesn't say anything about the breaking down of racism or the influences of multiculturalism or anything like that.
Sort of like 'in the old days', like what Ranma was talking about, people wanted to look as white as possible. I've learned about that too, before, and as far as I can remember that was more to do with the wealthy members of society not having to go out in the sun and do manual labour, thus not getting tanned skin. So being pale was a sign of being wealthy and not having to work. Similar to, as I have also learned at some point, people wanting to look plumper, as a display of wealth and a decadent lifestyle.
But in recent times, of course, a greater sign of being wealthy was being able to afford to go on holidays abroad, and coming back with tanned skin after spending your days frolicking in the sun.

[Lynx]

For some racists, genetic analysis is an alternative to skin/eye color judgments.

[amandevsingh]

Me and my friends used to use it as an insult, before we became Marxists, even sometimes now. But we just call each other white-washed because some of us (Not me) have never even been to India/Pakistan and some can't speak Punjabi/Hindi/Urdu. Also, we have used 'coconut' to describe Gandhi once in a while because he fought against black rights in South Africa.


This is true. However there is also a tendency to become ultra reactionary nationalists among the former colonized people. This is perhaps a reaction to the extreme oppression their ancestors faced. This tendency is something I've had to fight as a communist, since such reactionary nationalism is against working class consciousness. This is because such national consciousness is indicative of nation-states which are a product of the capitalist era. Of course, going the other extreme in slavishly idolizing the former masters is equally reactionary and detrimental to a working class consciousness as it is indicative of clinging to the horrid phenomenon of colonialism of the nineteenth century. So, its important to strike a balance between both those tendencies. Of course, people treating light-skinned people as "superior" or "high status" is a sign of people clinging to colonial/imperialist ideas of light-skinned people (Europeans) conquering the "uncivilized" peoples.

I agree with everything. This is why, when the Imperialists divided us, we started and continued wars with Pakistan. When I say that I have no problems with Pakistani people and have many Pakistani friends, my family members look like this: :scared:

Meanwhile many Indians immigrated to England, which is logical "They oppressed us! Lets follow them home!" :closedeyes:

[dogfooddi]

obviously, it's good to be white because people supposedy treat you better.

for example, africans in latin america would try to get it on with europeans and have their babies because the lighter the shade of the skin, the more likely the possibility of manumission. even post-slavery, africans in latin america would try to keep lightening the bloodline because then their offspring WILL in fact be whiter. of course, in the USA it didn't matter because of the one-drop rule but there is a distinct difference in perception down there. a HUGE and i mean HUGE majority of dark-skinned latin americans do not consider themselves "negro." instead they are "mulato" or "pardo."


as you know, darkness/lightness of skin color is still an issue in africa. it's an issue among asians. the sad part of it is, that these are people who have been oppressed before and they have inherently learned the philosophies of their oppressors and used it against others. bummer.


i'm sure you wouldn't be surprised at how many afro-americans admit they wish they were a lighter shade of brown.

[Itis]

Me and my friends used to use it as an insult, before we became Marxists, even sometimes now. But we just call each other white-washed because some of us (Not me) have never even been to India/Pakistan and some can't speak Punjabi/Hindi/Urdu. Also, we have used 'coconut' to describe Gandhi once in a while because he fought against black rights in South Africa.

Isn't the implication of this that racism is somehow inherently white? How is this not racist in constuction? Does it not trouble you that you apparently have an inability to critique racism without using racism? To call Gandhi a coconut implies that only whites can be racist against blacks in South Africa.

Also, if I understand you correctly, you and your friends use "white" as an insult? That's obviously relying on a racist theoretical framework.

[Communist Theory]

On my reservation it's an insult to be called white.
Most reservations I've been to are like that...

[Nickelplate]

FFS guys, there is nothing inherently racist about this. Lighter skin was always a sign of higher social standing. Not because or anything racial, but because the less work outside you had to do, the lighter your skin would be from lack of sun. The more servants you had, the less you had to go outside.

Paler skin was always seen as a sign of royalty. We may not have that social norm anymore, but the stigma remains.

[PetalPinkPeace]

I think it's because there's a prejudice that white people are more intelligent, have more money and are more integrated than black/foreign people.
All those damn prejudices... one of the worst sins ever.

[Black Sheep]

I have for example seen Greeks accusing Turks of being blackActually they accuse them for being 'mongolians' :laugh:

I guess the defenders of constantinopole were shouting at them in 1453:
you damn mongolians dont you break my (s)city wall!

Apparently in general, the whiter your skin, the purer,better,cleaner, better educated and more civilized you are:rolleyes:

[zerozerozerominusone]

I have noticed a tendency, and that is that in Mediterranean or Middle Eastern areas, nationalists use to single out those who are perceived as "darker" than themselves. I have for example seen Greeks accusing Turks of being black, Turks accusing Kurds of it, as well as Persians accusing Arabs of that.

But I have never seen someone accuse someone of being more white than themselves. It is really quite strange.

Not so strange, really. A bit arbitrary, perhaps, but not so very strange.

This "value" has been part and parcel of humanity for literally thousands of years going back to ancient times in India and China who have during this small eon always valued lighter complexions over darker. The Japanese are very much the same, as are Filipinos and, I believe, most SE Asians in general.

In the USA, black people are right on board with this. When I was a teacher in Harlem I one day observed an exchange between two black girls, my students. One was notably more darkly complected than the other. The exchange got personal and predictably devolved into snipes about looks until the lighter girl finally said, in reference to the comparative qualities of their appearances, "[I look] better than your black, burned-up ass". At that point the other girl was shut down completely because there was no denying the other girl's superiority in this regard, given that both were working from the same tacitly accepted standard of lighter == better.

In the black community, on the whole, the lighter you are, the better you are. I cannot recall too many (like zero) black people running about bragging how pitch black they were. It is part of their cultural complex and doesn't appear to be going by the wayside any time soon. I would call this just another of the many standards of beauty that seem to be nearly universal in cultures across the globe. Perhaps nothing wrong with it per se, but obviously it may be used as a club with which to beat another, just as so many other things may be so employed. Humans and human nature. It is the way we are by choice.

[zerozerozerominusone]

Actually they accuse them for being 'mongolians' :laugh:

I guess the defenders of constantinopole were shouting at them in 1453:
you damn mongolians dont you break my (s)city wall!


No no no doc, it's "you GOD damned mon-go-ree-ans... don't break my sheetee warr"

Jesus... don't the schools teach anything anymore?

[Sentinel]

I guess the defenders of constantinopole were shouting at them in 1453:
you damn mongolians dont you break my (s)city wall!Ironically, the (actual) Mongol's war against the Turks prolonged the survival of the Byzantine Greek Empire with perhaps half a century. The Turks had to defend themselves against Timur Lenk's forces in Anatolia and leave the dying empire alone.

The sultan Bayezid the Thunderbolt who had besieged Constantinople, defeated a western crusade intending to break the siege, and conquered many Greek territories, was even captured by Timur.

(Sorry for going offtopic)