Just struck me as a light skinned ethnic guy that the lightest coloured people of every race seem to be promoted by that race as leaders, people of beauty, good, important etc.
There are exceptions individually but in general I think this guess could be proven with facts.
Yay or nay?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"Yay or nay?"
i choose (or)
yeah but we all know looks can be deceiving, IMO people nowadays are much aware of what others are capable of..
so nay..!!
Oh yes, except for those poor bastard albinos in Uganda and Kenya.....slaughtered for their bits as magical amulets.
@Terminal Dogma: Whiteness / lightness seems valued
Google "skin bleaching" and "death". People all over Africa and Asia are killing themselves by putting dangerous chemicals on their skin to try and get a lighter complexion. They also use injections and lasers. The effects can be devastating. Remember Michael Jackson? He could afford the best of everything, and look how he ended up. Imagine what might happen to a Kenyan or Cambodian woman who goes to a back-street charlatan for skin whitening treatment.
Ironically, even more white people are getting skin cancer by trying to darken their skin on the beach or in tanning parlors.
"trying to darken their skin on the beach or in tanning parlors."
yeah..good thing i live in a tropical country "the Philippines" don't need to be tan. isn't it great feeling good about your self?
not that kind of boastful-bragging arrogant feeling that people do here in AR. a lot of hot air...like... you know who am i speaking off.
@Qu@si isn't it great feeling good about your self?
Nobody really feels good about himself/herself. We're always trying to be something better or at least different. And even if we achieve our ideal, we start to worry that we might lose it through aging. That's part of the human condition.
you know who am i speaking off.
No. I don't know. Why don't you elaborate?
No I don't know??
@Terminal Dogma:
I was responding to a comment in Quasi's post.
So was I, confusing.
alright alright..the person that i'm talking about is the brilliant self proclaim john wheezy...
"Nobody really feels good about himself/herself"
about that, well that is on your opinion. i think it depends individually of what kind or how contented we are. i simply love my self
and envy and greed is a sickness.. i'm the kind of person who's just contented on what he has or what he looks like.
peace out..al
@Quasi:
Well John's a psychologist, so he'd probably be able to tell you about body dysmorphic disorder and other conditions that cause people to worry that something is too big, too small, too light, too dark, or the wrong shape. You're very lucky to be happy in your skin. Most people aren't.
Apparently Asian opting for eye surgery to get round eyes like Caucasians is a big thing as well. Implants are nothing new but some Asians get butt implants to get round butts is also a thing.
So have we established that my hypothesis has merit?
Speaking of Michael Jackson....
Oh, the irony....
https://youtu.be/l3G81ELEkJY
Sad in a deep messed up kinda way.
Re: Michael Jackson
The sad part is that the guy was super-wicked talented, but obviously had a number of psyche problems. It's my understanding much of his problems stemmed from his childhood during the Jackson Five days.
@Tin-Man problems stemmed from his childhood during the Jackson Five days
Yeah. That's no childhood. On top of the showbiz crap, those kids were also harmed by religious indoctrination (Baptist then Jehovah's Witless for the Jacksons, Mormonism for the Osmonds).
But regardless of what he suffered as child, Michael Jackson should have been shot for dangling that baby over the balcony.
@Algebe
Yeah, the whole baby-dangle thing should have been a pretty big clue about his mental status. Waaay uncool.
But the all-time champion in reckless endangerment of an infant has to be this guy.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Tin-Man,
"Yeah, the whole baby-dangle thing should have been a pretty big clue about his mental status. Waaay uncool."
Tossing babies off of roofs is a sign of faith.
"For Babies in India, a 30-Foot Plunge for Good Luck"
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/29/world/what-in-the-world/for-babies-in...
It's not like Jackson dropped the baby.
@Dio Re: Baby drop
HO!... LY!... SHIT! I don't know whether to laugh at the absurdity or scream at the idiots.
fuck I live in solapur district and I never herd of this
WTF? Babies get brain damage by being shaken. Their necks can't support their heads.
@TD
It's probably classism. Even dark skinned folk tan in the sun, so historically, the darker the skin, the more evidence that the person was lower class and had to labour outdoors for a living. Higher classes didn't labour in the sun.
Good point.
I seriously question whether the lightest coloured people of every race seem to be promoted by that race as leaders. Due to my upbringing I am very familiar with European history. But the intense history of other nations, I accept my ignorance. Who knows, maybe the greatest leader in Africa was a very dark fugly warlord from a thousand years ago.
Was the great Greek hero Achilles actually white? Or maybe he was very dark.
We must be very careful with our assumptions, because propaganda and prejudice can color our perceptions. This agenda has been promoted with gusto by sections of the alt-Right who see themselves as heirs to European warrior masculinity.
But we can examine this issue with a revered figure from the past, jesus himself. The great majority of depictions, statues and artwork portrays him with the features of a nordic god. But recent studies trend towards jesus being a character with dark skin.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
It's not really a mystery. The answer, as I see it, isn't even remotely PC though... Since this is incredibly likely to be taken the wrong way, I want to start off with a history lesson from Neil DeGrasse Tyson. NDT gave an interesting speech on naming rights and the Islamic golden age of science. I know.... it seems to have nothing to do with this, but it really does. I'll get back to his speech in a minute, but as Tyson puts it, if you do it first or better than everyone then you get to call the shots and name things and you influence other people. This is my starting point as I'm thinking this through.
- Once upon a time India had an amazing civilization. That was dying out before the Egyptians started building pyramids. However, there is apparently some compelling evidence that the ancient Egyptians were heavily influenced by the ancient Indian culture.
- The Pharaohs had the last great civilization in Africa. We know that the Egyptians were influencing other cultures long after the last Pharaoh. Since Rome conquered Egypt there hasn't been a great civilization in Africa, which is still predominantly black. The only people really succeeding in Africa right now are white. About a decade ago Zimbabwe kicked out all the white farmers and begged for them to return when the people had to hunt rats for food. Now, South Africa is killing them off and stealing their farms, and it's pretty easy to divine their future...
- Dr. Tyson specifically points out that for a time Baghdad was the scientific center of the world for about 300 years. That period was so influential on Western culture that 2/3's of the stars still have Arabic names, we still use Arabic numbers, etc.. From 1100AD to now, the Islamic world has contributed almost nothing to the world.
- Asia is pretty much the same. They didn't affect Western culture to any great degree because they remained relatively cutoff from the world for centuries as their great civilizations were born and died.
- The ancient Greeks and Romans are generally considered to have been white. I'm not up on the debate points there, but I know there has been reason to believe otherwise. For the sake of this argument I'll go with the notion that they were predominantly white based on what I know about their art and writing. If nothing else it gives me an example of a couple of influential white cultures from ancient times. It relates to this because like every other great, ancient civilization they eventually went the way of the dodo and left their little corners of the world in an intellectual vacuum that wouldn't be filled again for a good 1500 years.
Right now... white people are at the top as the most influential race on the planet. The largest percentage of Nobel Laureates in history have been white. About 20% are Jewish. About 11% are Indian and Asian, while less than 2% are black (and at least one of those was given out without actually doing anything to earn it). More technological and medical advancements are coming out of the West than anywhere else in the world. No country is currently more influential than America, which is still about 70% white. We have the most active military on the planet. We live in a state of relative largess compared to the rest of the world. After that in no particular order there is Russia, Europe, Australia and I guess to some extent even Canada. The one thing all of these places have in common is that white people are either the #1 demographic, or they're the ones running the show. Coincidentally, these same predominantly white countries are the ones providing foreign aid to all the 3rd world shitholes. No one want's to be a 3rd world shithole, and except for Bernie Sanders and his ilk no one wants to live in a 3rd world shithole.
Virtually all of the countries that Baizuo (white left) Liberals tell Americans we should emulate are predominantly white or designed on western countries like Japan. No one has ever accused NASA of falling behind the technology of Agencia Espacial Mexicana. No one is saying America needs the same health care system as Zimbabwe or that Silicon Valley needs to keep up with Cambodia.The vast majority of countries everyone says we should be like are predominantly white. (There are some notable exceptions like Japan and China, bet in that part of Asia people are pretty darn white.) "Our farmers can learn a lot from Haiti" is something you're likely to hear in North America or Europe.
I'm sure a lot of people reading this are thinking it's about the most racist thing they'll read all week. It is not. If history has taught us anything about this, it is that no one wants to be like the unsuccessful countries. If Africa, the Middle East, or India ever gets their collective shit together white people will want to be like them. Their culture will define fashion and beauty. They will lead the world in innovation. They will be the ones to set the standards in every walk of life. I don't see this happening in my lifetime, but in the next couple of centuries I can see it as a possibility. My money is on the Asians being the next race to be the heavy hitters in world events...
@Maketakunai
Your response appears to focus on large ethnic groups, while my interpretation of the OP was about individuals.
As far as different ethnic groups, IMO a lot is determined by geography, availability of natural resources, and many other local factors. As far as any of it being determined by skin color, I respectfully disagree. And trust me, I am far removed from being a SJW. In fact, for the first 20 years of my life I lived in an extremely racist environment. The USA is what it is because of geography and availability of resources. And that it was built on the backs of black slaves and the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants. It wasn't white men who made America great, it was geography and availability of resources.
The Caucasian race is responsible for the dark ages, hundreds of years of stagnation at every point. Soon after the dark ages, an age of discovery led to mass murders on a global scale, by the Caucasian race. Hey, I'm a ginger, but not exactly proud of the track record of my ethnic group.
Enough about large groups, let's discuss individuals.
IMO we as individuals are predisposed to seek out healthy individuals for such roles as breeding and fighting. My personal genetic programming is to seek out a good female for my offspring. And being healthy includes muscle tone, good skin, appropriately sized breasts for lactating, and a nice ass because a wide pelvic girdle is beneficial for the process of child birth. Almost every characteristic that one defines as "sexually attractive" involved being healthy and a good mate for the production and raising of offspring.
So the smartest, healthiest, and most physically powerful took on the leadership role. That rules applies to almost all social animals, from humans to wolves.
But we have almost zero data to confirm or deny the OP's original question. Many cultures or nations did not enjoy the written word, who knows what the leaders in Africa were like a thousand years ago. No descriptions or portraits exist, in comparison to the Caucasian race. Were their leaders darker or lighter than the norm? We just don't know.
@David Killens:
Well, to be fair here the 1500 year intellectual void after the fall of the Roman Empire I was referring to includes The Dark Ages and hundreds of years of stagnation at every point. I'm not sure you can accurately say that white people were more murderous than any other races at that time, but it's not important enough to quibble over...
Almost everything you said about individuals is pretty much the same as for large groups. I rather suspect that we are more in agreement than disagreement here. It appears to me that we're just looking at the same issue from opposite sides but reaching the same conclusions.
"So the smartest, healthiest, and most physically powerful took on the leadership role. That rules applies to almost all social animals, from humans to wolves."
This is just what I'm talking about. If you do it first or best you get to call the shots and other people want to be like you. So, I really can't disagree with you.
"IMO we as individuals are predisposed to seek out healthy individuals for such roles as breeding and fighting."
Again.... no disagreement. I would also add though, that we are also pre-disposed to seeking out the traits we think will benefit our children. I think most people want their kids to be like them, but better. That includes being attracted to people who are going to pass on traits that will allow them to be dominant in the species, doesn't it?