When Whitening Propoganda Goes Too Far

[Moonrakers]

I don't think I am confused by saying race as a biological construct DOES NOT exist. It does exist as a SOCIAL construct. I do think most people haven't kept current about modern anthropological science.

http://www.pbs.org/r...001_00-home.htm

To wit --

Race is not biological, but racism is still real.

Race has no genetic basis.

In producing this series, we felt it was important to go back to first principles and ask, What is this thing called "race?" - a question so basic it is rarely raised. What we discovered is that most of our common assumptions about race - for instance, that the world's people can be divided biologically along racial lines - are wrong. Yet the consequences of racism are very real.

Fort christ's sake, you are just splitting hairs and it is entirely pointless to do so.

People who originate for Africa, for example, tend to have darker skin than those from Europe. Along with other differentiating features.

We are different races. You are trying to deny the undeniable. Why? What is wrong with recognising different races?

[Jingthing]

I agree some groups have darker skin. That isn't race. That's the result of a gene that makes darker skin. What's wrong with getting educated about what really is going on BIOLOGICALLY? Not splitting hairs at all.

Of course racism can and does exist even without their being a biological basis behind race. We are creatures of our minds, our prejudices, our social conditioning.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

Jingthing.

You seem to be getting confused, of course different races exist. Caucasian, Hispanic, Negroid etc. are all different human races that are recognised by science. A different race does not have to mean a different species but different races definitely exist.

And you guys arguing about race an ethnicity are wasting your time, the two are just so similar. They are basically the same with some minor technical differences. You had might as well be comparing oranges with satsumas.

I think recent research indicates that genetics is far more complex than race, and that the methods that we use to group people into races are somewhat arbitrary and not really supported by the underlying genetics; in other words, from a genetic perspective, the colour of someone's skin is not necessarily a good indication of genetic similarity to others of comparable hue, or difference from others with contrasting hue.

And as usual, I would strongly recommend not to bring in religion, or derogatory colloquial terms like 'satsuma'

SC

EDIT: Apologies for the digression above. Of course, the OP is not talking about adverts pandering to racism in his original post, but about social prejudice against dark-skinned people of basically the same race; the whitening products don't make you look like a person of a different race, they make you look like a person of the same race but clearly with more money than sense - very attractive to members of the opposite sex!

Edited February 25, 2011 by StreetCowboy

[Moonrakers]

I agree some groups have darker skin. That isn't race. That's the result of a gene that makes darker skin. What's wrong with getting educated about what really is going on BIOLOGICALLY? Not splitting hairs at all.

Of course racism can and does exist even without their being a biological basis behind race. We are creatures of our minds, our prejudices, our social conditioning.

You are getting yourself all tied up in terminology and for no good reason. You are splitting hairs. You're splitting the ends of the hairs that have already been split.

[Moonrakers]

Jingthing.

You seem to be getting confused, of course different races exist. Caucasian, Hispanic, Negroid etc. are all different human races that are recognised by science. A different race does not have to mean a different species but different races definitely exist.

And you guys arguing about race an ethnicity are wasting your time, the two are just so similar. They are basically the same with some minor technical differences. You had might as well be comparing oranges with satsumas.

And as usual, I would strongly recommend not to bring in religion, or derogatory colloquial terms like 'satsuma'

Is this the wrong time to mention limes?

[Jingthing]

I don't think so, MR. I think you don't enjoy being challenged about your basic assumptions about race. It's too comfortable to just accept them without updating and questioning them.

[Jingthing]

EDIT: Apologies for the digression above. Of course, the OP is not talking about adverts pandering to racism in his original post, but about social prejudice against dark-skinned people of basically the same race; the whitening products don't make you look like a person of a different race, they make you look like a person of the same race but clearly with more money than sense - very attractive to members of the opposite sex!

I think it depends on the Thai person you are talking about and how he thinks about skin color in the context of Thai society. I refer back to the obvious prejudice of lighter skinned central Thais towards darker skinned more Lao people Isaan Thais. It's not a matter of being of the same race or not in the same race, it's a matter of social perception of being in a different race/group/etc.

An extreme example of this light skin color hegemony is in the Dominican Republican. There almost everyone has some amount of African blood (which usually means genes for darker skin color) but their society is deeply socially divided with the lighter skinned "high yellows" being on top.

It's hard not to notice the hegemony of lighter skinned more "Chinese Thais" in Thai society. Is there racism going on here? I think so, very much, quite obviously.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

Jingthing.

You seem to be getting confused, of course different races exist. Caucasian, Hispanic, Negroid etc. are all different human races that are recognised by science. A different race does not have to mean a different species but different races definitely exist.

And you guys arguing about race an ethnicity are wasting your time, the two are just so similar. They are basically the same with some minor technical differences. You had might as well be comparing oranges with satsumas.

And as usual, I would strongly recommend not to bring in religion, or derogatory colloquial terms like 'satsuma'

Is this the wrong time to mention limes?

With JT involved, I would avoid discussion of fruits altogether, out of politeness

SC

[Moonrakers]

I don't think so, MR. I think you don't enjoy being challenged about your basic assumptions about race. It's too comfortable to just accept them without updating and questioning them.

Jingthing.

Science itself recognises different races within the human race, they have even given them names. You are challenging science. You are also challenging what I, as long with everybody else, can see with our own eyes. You are trying to challenge established scientific FACT. I don't understand why you think this would be uncomfortable for me, but you can assume what you want. I'll stick with science.

Over the generations, countless people have been oppressed and murdered purely because of their race. Only then for you to come along and say that their is no such thing as race. Do you want to try telling that to their families.

[Moonrakers]

Jingthing.

You seem to be getting confused, of course different races exist. Caucasian, Hispanic, Negroid etc. are all different human races that are recognised by science. A different race does not have to mean a different species but different races definitely exist.

And you guys arguing about race an ethnicity are wasting your time, the two are just so similar. They are basically the same with some minor technical differences. You had might as well be comparing oranges with satsumas.

And as usual, I would strongly recommend not to bring in religion, or derogatory colloquial terms like 'satsuma'

Is this the wrong time to mention limes?

With JT involved, I would avoid discussion of fruits altogether, out of politeness

SC

Banana then.

Banana is actually a herb, so we should be all right there.

[Jingthing]

I don't think so, MR. I think you don't enjoy being challenged about your basic assumptions about race. It's too comfortable to just accept them without updating and questioning them.

Jingthing.

Science itself recognises different races within the human race, they have even given them names. You are challenging science. You are also challenging what I, as long with everybody else, can see with our own eyes. You are trying to challenge established scientific FACT. I don't understand why you think this would be uncomfortable for me, but you can assume what you want. I'll stick with science.

Over the generations, countless people have been oppressed and murdered purely because of their race. Only then for you to come along and say that their is no such thing as race. Do you want to try telling that to their families.

You just twisted everything I have been saying. How many times do I have to say racism DOES exist, and people DO see race? We have to deal with that reality, yes indeed.

On your scientific assertion, I think it is outdated. You can't classify different human races biologically; that's what science has learned. For example, let's look at a group of similarly looking humans such as Armenians. Science is telling us now there is much more genetic variance WITHIN such a group than between them and any other random group you might mention, such as an isolated tribe in the Amazon. It's a bit mind blowing the first time you hear it, but that's science for you.

The superficial things we see as "race" such as skin color, eye shape, lip width, nose bone structure, hair characteristics are super tiny and totally minor from a GENETIC point of view. They look huge to us, but they are almost nothing genetically.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Jingthing

[Moonrakers]

I don't think so, MR. I think you don't enjoy being challenged about your basic assumptions about race. It's too comfortable to just accept them without updating and questioning them.

Jingthing.

Science itself recognises different races within the human race, they have even given them names. You are challenging science. You are also challenging what I, as long with everybody else, can see with our own eyes. You are trying to challenge established scientific FACT. I don't understand why you think this would be uncomfortable for me, but you can assume what you want. I'll stick with science.

Over the generations, countless people have been oppressed and murdered purely because of their race. Only then for you to come along and say that their is no such thing as race. Do you want to try telling that to their families.

You just twisted everything I have been saying. How many times do I have to say racism DOES exist, and people DO see race? We have to deal with that reality, yes indeed.

On your scientific assertion, I think it is outdated. You can't classify different human races biologically; that's what science has learned.

You are still trying to deny that different races exist.

You are talking as though the existence of different races is a bad thing. As though recognising different races is a bad thing and is a taboo that should not be spoken about.

We all have differences. Why not embrace them rather than try to deny them? What is so wring with having different races within the race that makes it so difficult to accept?

Racism is the problem, not the fact that we have different races.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Moonrakers

[StreetCowboy]

8>< SNIP NESTED QUOTES DELETED ><8

With JT involved, I would avoid discussion of fruits altogether, out of politeness

SC

Banana then.

Banana is actually a herb, so we should be all right there.

No its not; it is the fruit of the Musa genus of herbaceous plants.

Please accept my apologies to anyone who might be offended by my poor choice of words

The seeds are the little black specks in the interior.

SC

[jdinasia]

While race is still used to identify people's genetic heritage by the population at large it is futile to make a claim that "race" doesn't exist.

secondly ...

If you make the claim that race doesn't exist them obviously racism can't exist.

Bigotry exists in many forms.

Back to the OP ----

The marketing demographic for whitening cream isn't the impoverished masses, and it isn't surprising that some Thais are sick of it. Just like it isn't surprising that women in the West are sick of the oversaturation of waif supermodels being the "ideal" of beauty.

I am assuming that whitening cream will still be available in Thailand for years to come .. as will supermodels .... Why? Because it is the ideal of beauty locally.

[Jingthing]

While race is still used to identify people's genetic heritage by the population at large it is futile to make a claim that "race" doesn't exist.

secondly ...

If you make the claim that race doesn't exist them obviously racism can't exist.

That's a very intellectually lazy argument. It doesn't matter if it doesn't exist genetically/biologically if people see it and perceive it and act on it. It does exist in people's minds and it does exist in social messages to people. There doesn't need to be a biological basis for that to happen. I think people will always see race, no matter about the lack of biological basis of it. So of course, more than likely, there will also always be racism. There are things about human nature that just aren't so nice.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

While race is still used to identify people's genetic heritage by the population at large it is futile to make a claim that "race" doesn't exist.

secondly ...

If you make the claim that race doesn't exist them obviously racism can't exist.

That's a very intellectually lazy argument. It doesn't matter if it doesn't exist genetically/biologically if people see it and perceive it. It does exist in people minds and it does exist in social messages to people. There doesn't need to be a biological basis for that to happen. I think people will always see race, no matter about the lack of biological basis of it.

I suppose its like saying 'if God doesn't exist, then religion can't exist'; and thus using the argument that since religion exists, God must...

Racism can exist so long as people believe that we can be classified into different races with different characteristics.

Of course, the true experts in racial profiling amongst us perceive far more shades and hues than the simple 'black and white' that those of us from the Laurel and Hardy generation remember; this forum has some of the most discerning racial profilers I have met.

SC

[Jingthing]

Great example about God and religion! I suppose it would also be true that modern science can't provide any evidence of the existence of God but that's a can of worms for another thread.

[GreenSnapper]

I don't think I am confused by saying race as a biological construct DOES NOT exist. It does exist as a SOCIAL construct. I do think most people haven't kept current about modern anthropological science.

http://www.pbs.org/race/001_WhatIsRace/001_00-home.htm

Every ideology is backed by some website.

That does not make such nonsense "scientific". It is just as "scientific" as Marxism is "scientific".

Discussing ideology makes no sense. You personally believe in "social constructs". It is just some Western hype, feminists believe that gender is a "social construct". And you will find some pseudo-scientists who will back up such theories.

[Jingthing]

OK, please show me some CURRENT scientifically CREDIBLE website that asserts that race DOES exist as a genetic, biological fact and then you will have provided an alternative viewpoint. Without that, it's just noise.

I think you are confused about gender. Gender is biologically based. It's there in your genitals/hormones, etc.. For those born with ambiguous genitals, well that minority has some decisions to make. Also those who internally have one sex but feel as if they are the other. I don't think those minority cases mean that gender isn't objectively real biologically.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Jingthing

[jdinasia]

I suppose its like saying 'if God doesn't exist, then religion can't exist'; and thus using the argument that since religion exists, God must...

Racism can exist so long as people believe that we can be classified into different races with different characteristics.

Of course, the true experts in racial profiling amongst us perceive far more shades and hues than the simple 'black and white' that those of us from the Laurel and Hardy generation remember; this forum has some of the most discerning racial profilers I have met.

SC

Nah,

It is pointing out the internal contradictions in JT's claim to intellectual honesty.

Race exists for the masses ... so we own it. It doesn't matter that scientifically there are some faults in the concept. Therefore racism exists.

However, if race doesn't exist scientifically, then it is "intellectually lazy" to refer to skin-tone, eye shape etc bigotry as other than "bigotry".

[Moonrakers]

Hells Bells.

Somebody please put JT out of his misery, it's becoming painful to watch. (Although mildly amusing at the same time)

[GreenSnapper]

OK, please show me some CURRENT scientifically CREDIBLE website that asserts that race DOES exist as a genetic, biological fact and then you will have provided an alternative viewpoint. Without that, it's just noise.

I normally refrain from discussing obvious nonsense, but I make an exception and hope Stanford University is sufficient for you.

Studies contradict view that race doesn’t exist

Jan. 31, 2005

Special to World Science

Racial differences among people are real, new studies suggest, contradicting claims by some of the world’s leading scientists and scientific institutions that race doesn’t exist.

These experts had said race is merely a “social construct,” or a creation of society’s collective imagination. But the new studies, some of which come from Stanford University in Stanford, Calif., suggest that the way people classify themselves by race reflects real and clear genetic differences among them.

This indicates there is some truth behind the racial distinctions that seem obvious to most ordinary people, the researchers said.

But they added that it’s important to define race correctly, since dangerous misconceptions, such as the notion that some races are superior to others, persist and can serve to excuse racism.

Moreover, previous studies have shown that racial differences between population groups are small, much smaller than variations within the groups themselves. The newer studies didn’t specifically dispute this observation, but simply found that the between-group differences are also clear.

What is true, researchers said in light of the new studies, is that people of different races have different ancestries. This means different genes, since genes are inherited from ancestors.

“The public in general is much more honest” about race than many academics are, “because the general public knows it signifies something rather than nothing,” said Jon Entine, a journalist and author of a critically well-received book, “Taboo: Why Black Athletes Dominate Sports and Why We’re Afraid to Talk About It.”

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050128_racefrm.htm

[Jingthing]

So there is still controversy on the subject. However this statement from your link is pretty clear --

However, scientists, especially anthropologists, have continued to support the race-as-social-construct position.

The American Anthropological Association’s official statement on race declares: “physical variations in the human species have no meaning except the social ones that humans put on them.” The group’s president-elect, Alan H. Goodman, was quoted in a Baltimore Sun article of last Oct. 10 as saying, “Race as an explanation for human biological variation is dead,” and comparing the race concept to a gun in the hands of racists.

Also note that link is poorly sourced and rather suspect. For example, no it is not from Stanford exactly, now is it? So where does it come from exactly? I would rate this link and article as somewhat less then credible.

These experts had said race is merely a “social construct,” or a creation of society’s collective imagination. But the new studies, some of which come from Stanford University in Stanford, Calif., suggest that the way people classify themselves by race reflects real and clear genetic differences among them

Edited February 25, 2011 by Jingthing

[StreetCowboy]

So anyway, where do I go to buy the whitening cream.

I want to make myself more attractive to members of the opposite sex, and I've just seen a 30-second documentary on television on that very topic...

SC

[jdinasia]

So anyway, where do I go to buy the whitening cream.

I want to make myself more attractive to members of the opposite sex, and I've just seen a 30-second documentary on television on that very topic...

SC

Boots, Watsons, 7-11 ...... make sure you get the deoderant with the underarm whitening agent as well!

[Moonrakers]

So the UNDENIABLE FACT that the Caucasian race in general has paler skin, for example, is nothing but a social construct.

What a load of &lt;deleted&gt;.

[Jingthing]

There is no such thing as the caucasian race in the genetic/biological sense. There are groups of people in different parts of the world who have "whitey" genes, but that doesn't mean all of those people are caucasian, it just means they are light skinned.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Jingthing

[Moonrakers]

Why do I get the distinct feeling I have been feeding a troll?

Edited February 25, 2011 by Moonrakers

[Jingthing]

I'll give you an example of the social construct aspect of this from my own family. When my grandparents came to America, they were legally classified as "white" as only whites were legally allowed to become US citizens at the time (except African descent people who were allowed that after the civil war). Socially, they were considered not white, and more of an Asiatic "racial" classification. For example, at that time east Asian Indians could not become US citizens, even light skinned ones, because they were legally classified as not white. By the time I was born, with the same ethnic background as my grandparents, I was socially classified as white. Nothing changed genetically between me and my grandparents. Society changed.

Edited February 25, 2011 by Jingthing

[Moonrakers]

I'll give you an example of the social construct aspect of this from my own family. When my grandparents came to America, they were legally classified as "white" as only whites were legally allowed to become US citizens at the time. Socially, they were considered not white, and more of an Asiatic "racial" classification. For example, at that time east Asian Indians could not become US citizens, even light skinned ones, because they were legally classified as not white. By the time I was born, with the same ethnic background as my grandparents, I was socially classified as white.

So because somebody lied about their race, it means that race doesn't exist.

This thread is so ridiculous, it reminds me of Loretta: