As A South Asian Woman, Seeing Two Darker-Skinned Women On Bridgerton Means Everything.
The headline is obviously a bit much. The casting of dark-skinned actresses of Indian-origin really isn’t going to change the norms of the Indian subcontinent, or the whole of Asia. But it’s an interesting window on aesthetic standards and cultural creation. Indians who I bring up this issue with routinely suggest “well, you don’t have ugly people in American films.” The implication for many people of subcontinental origin is that dark skin is ipso facto ugly (and in Asia more generally). This seems the ground truth and the rest is just commentary.
same question was put to Jiddu Krishnamurti has said that indian civilization (Hindus) has become insensitive from inside because of islamic repression for centuries. The inner sensitivity is lost for most part, hence stagnation of brain and intelligence that brahmins once had is gone
I generally don’t care too much for identity politics but if there is any issue I am sympathetic too, its this one. Indian society can be be extremely brutal to us dark people.
I don’t like Marxist permanent oppressor vs. oppressee paradigm. It doesn’t capture the nuance of any context.
However, if I were to pick one in which it does the best (still not good just better than all other contexts), it is capturing the historically destitute state of the more AASI peoples of the subcontinent.
AASI ancestry is truly among the most historically subjugated. Darker skin and tropical features are just a proxy for it.
On a minor note: It’s a little odd that they still use high caste Punjabi names. Like Mindy Kaling was “Kelly Kapoor” in The Office. These girls are Sharma sisters. It doesn’t make much sense. Americans won’t get it. Some Indians may not either. But it shows even the soft power of the more steppe peoples of the subcontinent, in yet another manifestation.
From the article
‘When talented South Asian women have been cast in Hollywood, they have predominantly been fairer-skinned. Examples include Priyanka Chopra, Deepika Padukone and Freida Pinto.’
LOL
Yeah Indians need at least a trichotomy
Bollywood calls those women dark. Western Cinema views them as light for Indians.
Honestly, they are just in the range of typical brown, especially pre any skin lightening (Chopra).
Should be dark brown, medium brown, light brown.
We cast literal white folks as Tamilians. For us everything is dark.
https://varnam.my/culture/2017/337/5-problems-amy-jackson-starring-tamil-movies/
Brother what about Light Black, Medium Black, and Black as Ebony? You do realize that many of us are Black skinned, and that there are hundreds of millions of us across the country? We cannot be defined by just one color like brown, or even many shades of brown. We need a rainbow of colors to represent us.
I feel like people gloss over our existence…. as if we dont matter. I realize that even in the diaspora, we are a rarity because most of us as still stuck toiling away without hope in dead-end jobs trying to make ends meet and barely surviving. I was one of the lucky ones thanks to my family. But I know that most South Asians dont even realize we exist. Or at least hey pretend to. They live in their own Brown and Olive/Beige world. The truth is, black skinned South Asians are the truly distinctive people that cannot be found elsewhere and as such we have every right to get full representation and rights and much more exposure than we get currently.
And when I say black skinned, I mean the women at 10:30-11:20 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM85zVt6xCU
BTW @thewarlock why only talk about Brown skinned women and men? What about Black skinned men and women? Dont they exist and deserve to be represented? There are hundreds of millions of us and we are ignored entirely. This is what I mean when I talk about darkest skinned South Asian men/women. The women at 10:20-11:20 at this link: https://bit.ly/3r7R1Ao
You can see that they are disenfranchised and repressed because of their appearance. These people never get any representation in cinema anywhere. Unfair. Just like it is unfair to categorize all South Asians only using shades of Brown.
Gh78
Maybe if you lived in Sri Lanka it might be easier, Sudra country for the Sudras and ruled by Sudras
President Rajapakse and his wife.
https://imgur.com/gallery/6qJ9Ats
My one time partner on the left. |
A force to be reckoned with , 5’8″ tall and a personality to match
https://imgur.com/gallery/Gbf43Iv
The Meedeniya Family. Kandyan Aristocracy
The small girl was later married and was Lady Adeline Molamure
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Adeline_Molamure
@sbarrkum
Thank you for your advice and insights into SL life and culture brother. I have to say I have often thought about moving back to Tamil country, but I sometimes wonder, am I going back for the right reasons? As in, am I going back in defeat, with my head down, having lost any sense of self-respect and self-esteem because of racist abuse/bullying/discrimination from folks with less melanin? or am I going back simply because I prefer to live among my own people in a more equitable environment? I like how you take ownership of the word Sudra, though I must admit I am uncomfortable using such terms as I feel they are anachronistic and really offensive. Perhaps indigenous folks is more appropriate? We are native to the land.
I feel like until I can make it here without any problems assimilating, like your experiences, I would feel like a sore loser going back to Tamil country. I first need to plant my seed in this land, and only then can I consider going back to the homeland, a happy and content man in the right frame of mind. But I understand where you are coming from, and I will definitely retire in SL or TN when the opportunity presents itself. How long did you stay in the US? Were there any issues at all socially, in terms of career advancement or minor racism/significant racism? I know you mentioned you encountered no discrimination, but my experiences have been quite the opposite, so I guess I have just had bad luck so far. You have a very accomplished and regal/noble, beautiful family. How did you meet your wife? You seem like a very happy couple. Thank you for sharing your pictures.
“ I have to say I have often thought about moving back to Tamil country, but I sometimes wonder, am I going back for the right reasons? As in, am I going back in defeat, with my head down, having lost any sense of self-respect and self-esteem“
Didn’t periyar”s movement essentially named self respect movement or something ?
I found on a trad group on FB
Brahmins Simping over an Jai bheem girl because she is “light skinned” and look “UC” .
https://imgur.com/a/7gicXz9
https://imgur.com/a/pcXaj7W
@Shiva Ji
Thank you for bringing those pictures to light brother. They clearly show the shocking bias South Asians have for black skinned and AASI shifted facial features. The men are casually discussing how someone’s facial features and darker skin are proxy for them being Dalits and Chamars. And this is among educated middle and upper class people with urban roots/backgrounds who live in metros. The other picture set where people are aghast at seeing how this “Chamar” girl doesnt fit the stereotype of a dark, “ugly” AASI shifted Chamar shows the same immense prejudice. Absolutely incredible in this day and age. This is what I am trying to tell people, folks both back home and many in the West think the same way. They judge people unfairly based on their AASI shifted face and dark skin, stereotyping it as a look that is beneath them. It is why I dont understand the denial of some people here who claim that color and class and facial features and economic status are not linked — it is very much linked, and people with the most AASI have always been the most discriminated against, which is why it not a coincidence that the most poor and marginalized people in society, Dalits and otherwise, have the darkest skin and most unique features. They are in the economic and political state they find themselves in currently precisely because of their appearance and skin color alone. Like thewarlock said, it is simply a matter of more AASI, more subjugated, and skin color/appearance is a shortcut/proxy used by the higher caste to make it easier for them to identify us and discriminate against us.
Trads are literally the caricature of Hindutuva that leftists push as representative of the entire movement. They are clowns and hurting dharma.
But to be fair, too much of Indian society has these views. These people are just open and unapologetic about it. The biases they have aren’t most the disturbing part. The pride they have in them is. Their caste supremacy is.
Good God, smooth-brains like these are on a whole level of stupidity. They treat “Dravidian” as an AASI marker, even when AASI phenotype people are Indo-Aryan Speakers.
“Dravidians are Dalits”
Laughs in Rajendra Chola’s Armada. These clowns don’t know shit about Dravidian history and they dream of Hindu Unity. Pfft!
Well to attain Hindu unity, dravidians themselves have to first identity as Hindu, No?
deepika was dark to begin with. her father is far lighter
I wonder why you think Deepika is dark. She seems to be some sort of Olive or light brown. Have you seen dark Tamils and East Indians? What are they then?
True. I put them in dark brown. But black is a valid way to say it too. The darker the more discriminated against.
@thewarlock
I’m glad you agree brother — but I have to disagree with the claim that “dark brown” and “black” are the same; it would be like saying that “dark olive” and “brown” are the same or “dark beige” and olive are the same etc. It is a convenient way to ignore the existence of truly black skinned people that represent the most subjugated people in South Asia. This is a crime against humanity in my opinion, because it makes people forget our existence. We are black, not brown, and there is no shame in our skin color and appearance. We must be celebrated and accepted, not brushed away from sight. Black is the only valid way to say it, not dark brown. Black people (and South Asians) themselves have told me that my skin color is black (and often times it is blacker than their skin, which is a lighter shade of black than mine).
Black and brown are very distinct colors and have always been since the beginning of history and color being documented. Many hundreds of millions of South Asians like myself are as dark as or even much darker than Black people (and I dont just mean African Americans, vast majority of whom are indeed black skinned, look at the African American Supreme Court Justice that was recently appointed) but also the Nigerians and Central Africans, who are purely African and have the same skin color as me and hundreds of millions of other South Asians. In fact, we have skin colors even darker than many Nigerians. We are Black pundits too, not just Brown pundits. This must be acknowledged, lest it hurts our people more.
True. S Asia ranges from olive on avg Kalash to Black Irula and others. Very big diversity.
Maybe I am biased to word brown because I am brown.
@thewarlock
You are absolutely right brother — I feel like as humans we tend to only see what is immediately visible to us with our own eyes, and only think about our own lived experiences. And as such, we can sometimes forget about the experiences of other marginalized folks that we dont come into contact with as often. For me, I have always been a victim of colorism and discrimination so its nothing new. I have always thought of the majority of South Asians as being blessed with melanin, with a great majority that have beautiful, ebony colored skin. I always identified with the word Black. Brown or Olive never crosses my mind. So I am guilty of only identifying with the darker end of the spectrum as a Tamil.
I realize that there is also a plurality of South Asians with brown skin and these folks may not immediately come to terms with the usage of “black” to represent the average South Asia color, or even a possible color on the South Asian spectrum. (This blog is a good example, equates South Asians with a particular skin tone) Its only normal, people tend to be pragmatic and care most about their own issues/majority issues first. But its important to remember that there are many South Asians out there who are very different, both in terms of skin color and facial features, and that they deserve representation just as much as Brown ones.
In reality, South Asia is a mammoth region, with extreme diversity encompassed by many thousands of ethnic groups, each with millions of folks. Therefore, I truly believe that we are a nation of minorities, a coalition of different minority groups existing in an uneasy relationship marred by caste and prejudice and colorism, where the darkest and most “primitive” featured folks get the brunt of the trauma, as they have for millennia. You are born with caste, and you meet your end with caste, from the cradle to the grave. It is a system that makes Apartheid SA look tame in comparison. Unless and until we uplift our most marginalized communities, we will never progress as a nation. Right now we are simply looking the other way while hundreds of millions of “kaalle” South Asians are suffering for the simple accident of their birth arbitrarily defined as “inferior”. I also empathize with other people of color like Africans and SE Asians, etc.
For me, I have always been a victim of colorism and discrimination so its nothing new. I have always thought of the majority of South Asians as being blessed with melanin
I think its how you are brought up and the confidence given at a young age. My dark skinned, I mean shiny black Tamil cousins are extremely successful in the US and other countries. eg my only paternal male first cousin was the first black/ brown President of a US professional body, AIA (American Institute of Architects).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raj_Barr-Kumar
I cant say where I fall into dark brown color spectrum in others perception even in Sri Lanka. I never really worried about it (neither did my sisters). eg a Swim in the ocean will make you ten shades darker, and I just love being in the ocean. On and off some of my older Tamil relatives would make comments must be Fisher caste because I could swim (not common in SL an Island country) or coconut tapper because I could climb coconut trees. I think I was the only one in SL Uni who did not give a shit and climbed coconut trees when we went on campus trips.
I have never felt discriminated, in Sri Lanka as Tamil or in the US as black/brown very short guy who does not dress yuppie or upscale. Some Sri Lankans have said I look like a homeless guy. My Irish American SO of 17 years says I look like a not too smart scam artist. My very dear dear African American family say I look like an out of control Puerto Rican.
so gh78
Back to how you are brought up and the confidence.
Many of the so called “African Americans” who are in the forefront of politics are not descended of slaves in the US.
First and foremost Obama, then Kamala Harris. Colin Powell was of Jamaican descent.
The descendants of slaves in the US rarely make it to the top in the political sphere.
@sbarrkum
You bring up an interesting point. We are Nadars, but when I used to visit my relatives back home and play outside shirtless, I used to get a even darker black tan, and they used to always tell me that I looked like a coconut tapper/climber, as if it was a way to disparage me. Similar to what you have heard. I have also heard that I look like a homeless black guy, here in the US. Despite the fact that I have grown up middle class. These stereotypes of behaviors and appearances being linked to certain ethnic groups that are disenfranchised is sickening really. But it is also true that in the West, certain climbers and people from historically oppressed classes like the Amritraj brothers have been quite successful. Not something you see in India in the mainstream. I have faced quite a few instances of discrimination here in the US, though I wish I could say otherwise. Confidence and self esteem go a long way, but they do not help shield you from ignorance and racist mindsets/attitudes. If anything, I have seen that it incites the racist to act more belligerent in my experiences. They feel that it is odd for someone like me to have a confident aura. I am very happy with who I am, but I do not appreciate the narrow minded prejudice that some people have displayed to me.
i think this whole browbeating of indians for their color prejudices is bit overdone now. skin color prejudices exist in almost all cultures. east asians, arabs, latin americans, you name it and they all have it. in fact i read an article sometime back that even among south sudanese – supposedly the people with the darkest skin tones on earth – there is a preference for fair skin! i would think that being on the opposite extreme of the spectrum, they would naturally rate darkest skin as the most desirable, but evidently that is not the case. so cut us indians some slack on their “fair and lovely” fetishes.
also, from my lived experience i can say that while indians may make fun of dark skinned persons as kaliya etc, its mostly done in a light hearted way. there is no real social or economic cost associated with a dark skin, not for the males at least. if others think otherwise, let me know.
The norm of cultures is that slightly lighter than average for women and darker than average for men is viewed as most attractive. This makes sense given testosterone promotes melanin production. Also women are more often associated with beauty. So in this paradigm, it would make sense that slightly lighter is seen as more “beautiful.”
In most historic writings, when people encounter foreigners for the first time, they do not tend to find them attractive, unless they look phenotypically close enough.
India’s case is especially odd because the beauty ideal is so far from what the general population looks like. There is always a difference in beauty ideal and general population look. In India’s case it is quite vast.
Indians are seen as almost “pathetic” in that sense because they don’t celebrate themselves. They tend to view the look that the majority of their population possesses as inherently “inferior” to more caucasoid and lighter looks to the West.
The overlooked aspect of this colour consciousness is the colonial angle. It’s basically the white gaze and accumulated generations of “colour-status bias” that has given rise to complexes among natives.
In the original “Planet of the Apes” by French writer Pierre Boulle, he notes auto conditioning mechanisms that any society uses to distinguish itself from other societies – hair (or lack of), vocalisations, colour etc.
Generally like other commenters have noted, this is more of a marker of subcontinental females than males. And I had to post this piece from a leftist bastion.
https://browngirlmagazine.com/2020/03/dark-goddesses-and-me-religious-colorism-in-hindu-india/
When in doubt about your skin tone, reach for Draupadi. For everything else, there is Marx!!
The overlooked aspect of this colour consciousness is the colonial angle. It’s basically the white gaze and accumulated generations of “colour-status bias” that has given rise to complexes among natives.
if colonial, you mean muslim. the muslims were quite clear about white muslims vs black ones, and the whites were beautiful and superior (w asians). the north indian color terms apparently date to that period.
The early Muslim dynasties (also in North India) did express some opinions on colour but there was really no codification or jurispudence.
The peak of “skin tone proxification for competence, status and beauty” was achieved in the European colonial period and formed the basis for real laws – on all the four continents – Americas, Africa, Asia and Australia.
Today’s attitudes are a direct legacy of that codification. Those laws provided a direct reinforcing incentive to human behaviour – almost approaching the outcomes of adaptive evolution.
for what its worth the mauryan frescos at ajanta dont seem to display any fair skin bias and portray indians in natural skin colors from that region of india. so it seems the biased increased at some point after that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajanta_Caves#Paintings
Today’s attitudes are a direct legacy of that codification. Those laws provided a direct reinforcing incentive to human behaviour – almost approaching the outcomes of adaptive evolution.
this is false. east asian attitudes are known/attested well before european contact. same with precolumbian indians. the inca kidnapped Amazonian women and prized them for their light skin.
no matter what indians think there was history before white people
That is true. Skin tone preferences are/were present throughout the world. They were, however, evenly distributed. Indians reserved the darker skin tone for some of their best gods – Krishna, Rama, Draupadi, Kali etc.
You could say that before the arrival of the White man, the Indian awareness of skin tone was only “skin-deep”
White people, however, proxified skin tone with baser instincts and sub-humanity. They pioneered the systematic discrimination of people of specific skin tones and wrote detailed jurispudence to enforce them. Colour based affirmative actions are present only in the successor states of white settler or colonial societies. What can be clearer than this?
I cannot think of any vast swath of Asian society that had to bring out colour based affirmative laws or ban colour based miscegenation laws.
I think our ‘best’ gods being dark skinned is a easy cop out. Most of the Gods having dark skinned have desi/ tribal origins. Like Krishna, Kali or Jagannath. True of the Southern deities as well.
Had they been pure ‘Aryan’ import like Indra, they would have been white as well.
Can’t even call this a stupid argument because for that it’d still have to make some sort of point via sense and logic (no matter how poor).
Those are Indian/Hindu gods and they’re dark-skinned. Dark-skinned and revered. Period.
I mean, just reverse the claim. “Aryan gods being light-skinned is a cop-out. If they had tribal/desi origins, they’d have been dark-skinned.” Yeah, no shit, Sherlock! Indian culture is a synthesis of a bunch of different things incl. light-skinned migrations as well as dark-skin inhabitants and migrants. I mean, what’re you implying? That desis/tribals aren’t Indian, didn’t contribute to Hindu culture, that Krishna isn’t as authentically Hindu as Indra? Just total claptrap.
And you’re wrong about dark southern deities. Many south-exclusive deities are light while certain northern deities are often portrayed as pitch black.
The point isn’t that racism/colorism aren’t real, but that these things are more complex than many would grant and simplistic American-style black and white narratives don’t apply.
You could say that before the arrival of the White man, the Indian awareness of skin tone was only “skin-deep”
you can say this about India. i’m skeptical, but let me stipulate that
east asians (chinese japanese) are good cases because they have writing going back 3,000 years. the light skin preference was strong, but not for european features (big noses) or hair and eye color. east asian (chinese) witches had green eyes and red hair (code for white looking ppl in western china), while Japanese women with brown hair would dye it black (also, epicanthic fold was more beautiful).
there are some possible evolutionary reasons that in stratified societies light skin would be preferred, especially for women. for example, when you have a leisure class they’re normally going to be lighter skinned than farmers (in east Asia farming is associated with brown coloring, officials and elites with light).
the fixation on european beauty standards is very recent. it is quite distinct from light-skin privilege in east Asia.
(one culture besides east Asia i know of is Iran, and there women were beautiful if they had light skin, black eyes and black hair and a moon-face [round]. it was clearly not classically european, though the light skin thing is there)
The fact that India has an obsession with light skin isnt exactly new. It has existed since pre-colonial times thanks to the Aryan invasion and the resulting hierarchy of skin color and beauty. The Kama Sutra specifically talks about light skin being a beauty standard. Even the religious texts talk about darker skinned people being subjugated and driven from their homelands etc. I dont think the British had anything to do with it.
5 layers possibly dude
1. Some hypothesize Indus valley had some potentially with Iranic people and initial AASI
2. Steppe influx
3. Constant invasions and conquests from lighter West Asians, including through Islamic times
4. British
5. Further perpetuation and codification via mass media in Post WWII order America phase (that same order now is trying to push for more aesthetic equity of darker people, even if arguably artificially so)
Arguments are about what had biggest effect. But yes tropical features and AASI have long history of discrimination against.
Also last point is evolution likely, cultural and biologic. For the prior, light skin historically higher status from being indoors, in post hunter gatherer societies.
For the latter, testosterone causes greater melanin production and darkening of skin. Beauty tends to be associated with female sex. Therefore, on average men being “tall, dark, and hansome” and women being “fair, curvy, and youthful” is present in many cultures. But this is always relative to average skin tone.
Again, when people encounter foreigners for the first time, unless they look similar enough by historic hapstance (eg. Greeks and Persians), they tend to find them not good looking. Maybe some luck out and have the eye color of a God (eg. Cortez) but that’s not common place.
5 factors above have perverted things in S Asia. Dominance hierarchies historically have favored lighter people largely.
I dont remember seeing anything in kama sutra about skin color, also nothing comes up online. Do you have a reference ?
Kama Sutra is an interesting text btw (sex positions are a very small part) I highly recommend it. Also caste doesn’t seem like a big deal at all.
The dating and social scene it describes seem to have more in common with current Western dating scene than India from 1970s or something.
It was weird to see such liberal attitudes towards sexuality in a 2000 year old Indian text.
I suspect these norms were restricted to urban areas, and possibly some of de-urbanization happened which change the culture milieu.
here is a quick preview:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kama_Sutra#Contents
“It has existed since pre-colonial times thanks to the Aryan invasion”
What about the “Dravidian Invasion”?
TBH u need some ‘martial’ stuff to do the invadin..
So not sure about “Dravidian Invasion”
@Sumit
Kama Sutra has many references to skin color and explicity equates fair skinned women with Beauty.
Direct Quote from Project Gutenberg Full Text of the Kama Sutra:
“She in whom the following signs and symptoms appear is called a Padmini. Her face is pleasing as the full moon; her body, well clothed with flesh, is soft as the Shiras or mustard flower, her skin is fine, tender and fair as the yellow lotus, never dark coloured. Her eyes are bright and beautiful as the orbs of the fawn, well cut, and with reddish corners. Her bosom is hard, full and high; she has a good neck; her nose is straight and lovely, and three folds or wrinkles cross her middle—about the umbilical region. Her yoni resembles the opening lotus bud, and her love seed (Kama salila) is perfumed like the lily that has newly burst. She walks with swan-like gait, and her voice is low and musical as the note of the Kokila bird, she delights in white raiments, in fine jewels, and in rich dresses. She eats little, sleeps lightly, and being as respectful and religious as she is clever and courteous, she is ever anxious to worship the gods, and to enjoy the conversation of Brahmans. Such, then, is the Padmini or Lotus woman.”
Releant part: “her skin is fine, tender and fair as the yellow lotus, never dark coloured.”
Our obsession with skin color is very ancient. Has nothing to do with Brits or others. Besides, we were never colonized/conquered by West Asians, it was Turkic and Mongolic people from Central Asia that conquered us, and they themselves found West Asians more beautiful than themselves (and raped/conquered them too) and had darker skin than lightest West Asians. Our skin color obsession is internal and dates back thousands of years. Foreign influence is not to blame, it is the Dravidian and Aryan invasions. And if you claim that as foreign then the very essence of South Asia is foreign and no one is native to the land. You dont see South Asians that want to have slit eyes like Mongol and Turkic Central Asian people just because they conquered us do you?
They are just mentioning ‘types’ of women, they mention others too:
http://free-sex-therapy.com/kamasutra/Types%20of%20women.htm
###
Folks like Razib for various reasons will endlessly talk about caste ( roughly ‘genetics’ for nerds) and skin color, no point trying to appear defensive about things beyond individual control.
Proactively:
Recognize that they have a point and change our society.
Reactively:
Keep bothering them because if left alone they will bother you.
Talk about carbon footprint of westerners especially on ethical issues like meat-eating don’t give them an easy pass, obsessively talk about their diet and their trucks, talk about their birth-rates, poke holes into nepotism in their society, talk about incessant sexualization of teenage women, talk endlessly about multi-generational effects of slavery on the culture and economic wellbeing of African Americans.
###
@Gh78
That quote seemed very off to me so I did a search on the Gutenberg edition
Specifically the quote you found is from the Preface not the actual text where the author is talking about other Hindoo texts. Specifically the context is…
”The Stage of Love’ (No. 6) was composed by the poet Kullianmull, for the amusement of Ladkhan, the son of Ahmed Lodi, the same Ladkhan being in some places spoken of as Ladana Mull, and in others as Ladanaballa. He is supposed to have been a relation or connection of the house of Lodi, which reigned in Hindostan from a.d. 1450-1526…”
The other mentions of the word ‘fair’ in the Kama Sutra have to do with carnival fairs and not skin color.
I don’t claim to know where the fair skin thing comes from. Just that I don’t remember seeing any in the Kama Sutra.
Anyone can verify here…
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/27827/27827-h/27827-h.htm
Quite frankly I think the obsession with the obsession is the real western import. Atlantic History 1500-1950 is neither the history of the whole world, nor the history of all time. Skin colour connotations from that world make little sense in Southern and Eastern Asia.
Is there any fundamental difference in bleaching ones hair compared to bleaching ones skin? In a society where everyone is the same colour, surely going blonde is a proxy for skin whitening by such a line of reasoning?
Don’t get me wrong, I think the skin bleaching industry is odious, but let us put it in the same context as a number of “acceptable” western beauty preferences, which no one treats with the same standards. My frank opinion is that skin lightening should be treated as tight-lacing, hair bleaching, unhealthy dieting, and other harmful practices instead of being assumed as a racial or colonial problem in the Atlantic Paradigm.
As a final note, Anglo-Indian maternal origins come from the lower castes, who were likely much darker. With the exception of a few upper class unions, this indicates a comfort with, if not an indifference to, darker skin by early colonials.
“ this indicates a comfort with, if not an indifference to, darker skin by early colonials.”
From an anglo perspective all Indians are dark.
Just like how from an Indian perspective all anglos are light even the Rowan Atkinson types.
yes, this. indians and other darker ppl make fine distinctions. but europeans far less so, because all are very fair. they do make distinctions on hair and eye that make no sense in most of the world because they’re monochromatic
Any particular reason why Europeans have so many different hair colors and eye colors while most other peoples only have black hair/brown eyes.
no one knows.
but the hair/eye color genes impact skin color too
This might be my most controversial take, forgive me.
well, one has to make distinction between urban lot vs those in hinterlands. From all the indications on surveys on porn. which is quite frankly easiest to gauge. Indians prefer Indians. to quote shekhar gupta on print. Indians prefer Indians of college age . This preference might change over time to lighter skin over all. who knows?, also, can there be evolutionary reasons on preference for lighter tone in terms of aesthetics?. Less is more in paintings/ drawings, perhaps lighter skin color accentuates shape and features better?. I say this strictly with respect to a video I saw long time back comparing a drawing of horse by a 5 yr old boy vs leonardo da vinci. The boy’s was better as he just drew outlines. One could test this by drawing pictures of same individuals with different shades or colors, take pictures of same individual with different amount of lighting and different colors. Perhaps brain prefers to get shape features faster and that is done better with more lighting or lighter color?. It would be nice to have good science based answers. Also, racists keep away. If so, the answer to enhance beauty is just good lighting to accentuate features.
As a black-skinned Tamilian, this talk of skin color amuses me to no end. Indians here in the West cry foul about brown folks getting no representation, but start backing away when a charcoal skinned South Asian like me remarks on the lack of representation of truly melanin-blessed folks that represent the bulk of disenfranchised peoples in the subcontinent.
All this talk of Bipasha Basu and Priyanka Chopra and the Bridgerton sisters being dark really makes me grin. The truly dark South Asians, found all over the subcontinent, get no real representation whatsoever, be it in Bollywood or even Hollywood. There is zero such representation in fact.
This is what I mean, when have you seen such skin colors/people represented:
Tamils: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2h8iHB5c48
Karnataka: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUS2TA7Qna8
Biharis, this woman at 1:20: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZivnGI7KxFY
Bihari man: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh-EkMNDpGc
Please take a close look at these women and men at 10:30-12:00 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM85zVt6xCU
^These women represent the true sense of what it means to be disenfranchised and marginalized in Indian society, as they are the darkest and most hated of all — and many hundreds of millions of South Asian men and women fall into this category, myself included.
^I am willing to bet that almost no one on this board will treat these women with equal respect and dignity, especially when it comes to things like marriage and friendship. Especially in India, but even outside of India. And I say this as someone that has experienced such discrimination from fellow South Asians, almost as if I am an embarrassment to them for being born so “dark and ugly”.
If you are truthful and are willing to admit your bias then please try to change it. If you are lying to yourself and despise these people while claiming to not engage in discrimination, then please try to change as well.
i had never heard of this m c raj shown in the karnataka section of youtube earlier.
looks like he has started a new ‘cult’.
I want people to be completely honest here: how many of you would view/treat/befriend/marry women in this video at the 10:00-12:00 mark equally?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM85zVt6xCU
These are the truly dark-skinned women (and men) that are on the sidelines of Indian society and the world at large. They have zero representation in media and elsewhere. And no one cares. They want such people to stay hidden behind the curtain.
The irony of South Asians speaking out about a lack of “brown” representation is that they would be immediately back off and be horrified at any attempts to get better representation for these black-skinned South Asians that not only have much more melanin, but also distinctive facial features that Bridgerton and Priyanka and Bipasha dont have. I know from experience. And this is tragic, because these are the people of the soil, the people that number in the hundreds of millions and that languish in the dust, with no support, upliftment. We are as good as dead to the South Asian Community.
True. We need more black types in the media. Tbh, it’s been hard to even get brown types in, until recently. Indian society is deeply prejudiced. It will take steps. It isn’t ideal but the change won’t be quick.
They all look like they’re 50 due to stress. Malnourished poor people are not attractive, no matter what race. Poonam Pandey is an example of a woman who has the same phenotype as these women but has taken care of her looks&health.
Man , seriously ? Poonam pandey? 😂😂
@Engima
Sorry brother, but I dont think that woman you mentioned looks anything like the women and men in the videos, either her facial features, or skin color. And it has nothing to do with living conditions, but genetics and community affiliations. We have our own AASI shifted look that is drastically different from everyone else, inc Pandey. To deny this is to cover up the heinous crime of excluding people that look like this from the South Asian mainstream: https://imgur.com/a/eH7bJ7v
^These women are nothing like Poonam Pandey or Basu or Chopra or Bridgerton. To deny this is a falsehood, a most poisonous falsehood that is destroying the lives of these innocent people that get no representation or adequate rights. It denies them their dignity and existence. We dont have to look like some mainstream South Asians to get acceptance. We are equal regardless of our appearance.
And it has nothing to do with living conditions, but genetics and community affiliations. We have our own AASI shifted look that is drastically different from everyone else, inc Pandey.
this is not totally true. it does clearly have something to do with SES and health. there are black-skinned indians adopted into the USA. many of them look totally different (unfortunately a lot turn out fat like most americans!) because of different conditions (albeit, very dark).
this woman was adopted from maratha peasants into a Spanish family https://www.penguin.com.au/authors/asha-miro
@Razib
I was referring to the fact that these AASI shifted facial features and black skin color arent due to living conditions but solely due to genetics/community. Obviously their health and grooming will be better in first world conditions. I have seen the adopted children you mention, and it is true that they have much better lifestyle outcomes and health and are in very good physical and mental shape. Things like healthy skin/hair/nails/BMI and height.
But as far as appearances go, the author you mention is perhaps not the best example of a black skinned and different looking South Asian. The most she has lost is a deep tan from not working outside. The Amrtiraj brothers are the best example of truly disenfranchised South Asians that still look like their less fortunate brethren and they all grew up very privileged in foreign lands, played Tennis professionally and now live in Hollywood. They are Nadar, so Tamil climbers. Of course, their parents were very privileged as well. Despite these advantages, they look no different from other poorer and darker Tamils/South and East Indians like myself and hundreds of millions of others back home. Pictures:
^This is the true meaning of dark skin in a South Asian context.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DvT1dESX4AAECaS?format=jpg&name=large
^These folks represent the best of us, and show what great heights highly AASI South Asians can achieve when offered the same opportunities as others. Excel in every sphere. But as you can see, their overall appearance/face/skin color looks not out of place among the darkest/disenfranchised folks in the videos and pictures I linked above. They are taller and better groomed/dressed but blend in well with the people in the documentary. They also dont have sharper features or “classic” Indian beauty either. They are unique and must be celebrated for their own identity.
True. Environment helps. Regarding common discrimination, perhaps facial features>skin color and the latter is just a proxy for the prior?
I think he will argue that she still has “sharp features.” Basically, not so wide and flat nose, thin lips, almond eyes, and not too much facial fat. She will get the classic “She is dark but still pretty because of her sharp features” remark in India.
I think the types he is talking about are the Johnny Lever types.
Basically, the argument goes that even when these people are in maximized environmental conditions that lead to stuff like perhaps better facial symmetry, skin, teeth, body fat percentage, lean muscle mass, and height- they still will face an inherent discrimination against their tropical features. Perhaps, this is even stronger than the discrimination against skin color, in some contexts.
If you read NW supremacist posts, they tend to actually focus on facial features the most because even they realize that among their groups, there are a fair number of dark people who pop up.
I think he will argue that she still has “sharp features.” Basically, not so wide and flat nose, thin lips, almond eyes, and not too much facial fat. She will get the classic “She is dark but still pretty because of her sharp features” remark in India.
I think the types he is talking about are the Johnny Lever types.
Basically, the argument goes that even when these people are in maximized environmental conditions that lead to stuff like perhaps better facial symmetry, skin, teeth, body fat percentage, lean muscle mass, and height- they still will face an inherent discrimination against their tropical features. Perhaps, this is even stronger than the discrimination against skin color, in some contexts.
If you read NW supremacist posts, they tend to actually focus on facial features the most because even they realize that among their groups, there are a fair number of dark people who pop up.
@thewarlock
You are correct brother, I was referring to the fact that these AASI shifted facial features and black skin color arent due to living conditions but solely due to genetics/community. Obviously their health and grooming will be better in first world conditions. I have seen the adopted children you mention, and it is true that they have much better lifestyle outcomes and health and are in very good physical and mental shape. Things like healthy skin/hair/nails/BMI and height.
But as far as appearances go, the author you mention is perhaps not the best example of a black skinned and different looking South Asian. The most she has lost is a deep tan from not working outside, she still wouldnt be anywhere near black. The Amrtiraj brothers are the best example of truly disenfranchised South Asians that still look like their less fortunate brethren and they all grew up very privileged in foreign lands, played Tennis professionally and now live in Hollywood. They are Nadar, so Tamil climbers. Of course, their parents were very privileged as well. Despite these advantages, they look no different ethnically from other poorer and darker Tamils/South and East Indians like myself and hundreds of millions of others back home.
They have what is the true meaning of dark skin in a South Asian context, in addition to AASI shifted features. These folks represent the best of us, and show what great heights highly AASI South Asians can achieve when offered the same opportunities as others. Excel in every sphere. But as you can see, their overall appearance/face/skin color looks not out of place among the darkest/disenfranchised folks in the videos and pictures I linked above. They are taller and better groomed/dressed but blend in well with the people in the documentary. They also dont have sharper features or “classic” Indian beauty either. They are unique and must be celebrated for their own identity. These are the folks that get the brunt of the racism both abroad and back in the homeland.
@GH78
I get where you are coming from. And keep fighting to reveal these prejudices. But I think there has to be some realism about the pace of change. There was a time when even Frieda Pinto would have been too dark for Bollywood. There was a time when even Nina Dulaveri couldn’t get as far as she has gone in the American Beauty circuit. Things are changing. Perhaps too slowly for your liking. But it will take time.
The most important thing is to promote individual freedoms, strong market policies, and good moral/intellectual education. Once people are more free and enlightened, they are less likely over time to have these prejudices. I understand your angst. But I don’t see a quick policy fix. I think you are already doing a big part in what is a practical way to go about things. You are trying to expose the unconscious biases of even some of the most well meaning people.
I would say to keep doing it with civility (you currently are). You will keep winning hearts and minds that way.
@warlock
I was referring to the fact that these AASI shifted facial features and black skin color arent due to living conditions but solely due to genetics/community.
Obviously their health and grooming will be better in first world conditions. I have seen the adopted children you mention, and it is true that they have much better lifestyle outcomes and health and are in very good physical and mental shape. Things like healthy skin/teeth/hair/nails/BMI and height.
But as far as appearances go, the author you mention is perhaps not the best example of a black skinned and different looking South Asian. The most she has lost is a deep tan from not working outside, and is in good health. The Amrtiraj brothers are the best example of truly disenfranchised South Asians that still look like their less fortunate brethren and they all grew up very privileged in foreign lands, played Tennis professionally and now live in Hollywood. They are Nadar, so Tamil climbers. Of course, their parents were very privileged as well. Despite these advantages, they look no different from other poorer and darker Tamils/South and East Indians like myself and hundreds of millions of others back home.
Pictures:
^This is the true meaning of dark skin in a South Asian context.
^These folks represent the best of us, and show what great heights highly AASI South Asians can achieve when offered the same opportunities as others. Excel in every sphere. But as you can see, their overall appearance/face/skin color looks not out of place among the darkest/disenfranchised folks in the videos and pictures I linked above. They are taller and better groomed/dressed but blend in well with the people in the documentary. The difference between them and the folks that live in poverty is the same as that between a homeless African American man and a rich African American athlete. They also dont have sharper features or “classic” Indian beauty either. They are unique and must be celebrated for their own identity.
Dude.
Totally get where you’re coming from but folk with the deep brown/black skin colour you’re referring to are not unrepresented in Indian pop culture, maybe the diaspora but I’ll come to that later. Given the wide variation in Indian skin tones its not uncommon to have to have members of a family on the deep-dark spectrum and they’re given exactly as much respect or standing as the others. They may be under-represented in Bollywood but that shouldn’t matter as Bollywood stopped caring about representing Indian society ever since the turn of the millennium. Regional cinema (not just South Indian) has plenty of dark skinned actors, granted not in leading roles but that day isn’t far away.
Since this is a diaspora-biased forum it may seem as if representation of Indians is dominated by lighter skinned types but that isn’t true back home, barring beauty pageants or television soaps which no one cares about anyway. And within the diaspora there are the darker hued (SL Tamils for instance) that are carving out their own niche separate from N Indian aesthetics while staying rooted to their culture, and are doing very well economically too.
“I want people to be completely honest here: how many of you would view/treat/befriend/marry….”
Can’t speak for the others but in my opinion the darker skinned types in India have on average sharper features, large eyes and other attributes one associates with classic Indian beauty which I personally find very attractive. And outside arranged marriage circles in most urban settings no one really cares about skin colour, can’t speak for rural areas though.
“ Can’t speak for the others but in my opinion the darker skinned types in India have on average sharper features, large eyes and other attributes one associates with classic Indian beauty“
This reminded me of gossips of household aunties back home. Apparently this is what said to dark-ish young girls so that they don’t get disheartened by the their color, in the marriage market. Not sure how true it’s though.
@Siddharth @Saurav
Brothers, I do not agree with the idea that darkest folks have sharper features or more “classic beauty” Indian looks. We have a diverse range of looks, and plenty of us have flat features and appearances that are currently construed as “ugly” by the majority of Indians and South Asians, brown and beige folks included. To deny this is absurd. We dont need to make up for our darker skin by having sharper features or classically beautiful features. That indicates a lack of something that needs to be made up with something else. We are beautiful as we are, something that South Asian society is reluctant to accept. The same goes for NE Indians and South Asians that look East and SE Asian. Also, I disagree with the claim that skin color is irrelevant in South Asia, it is simply laughable to state this. The amount of times my skin color has mattered in South Asian circles/South Asia, be it professionally or socially is insane. It has done me no favors, be it in the north or south. And the media/beauty industry has zero representation of folks like this: https://imgur.com/a/eH7bJ7v
“I do not agree with the idea that darkest folks have sharper features or more classic Indian looks…”
Ok. That’s your opinion, and looks are subjective anyway so whatever.
You’re really mixing your drinks here, conflating caste, colour and economic status. The people you’re pointing out are severely socially and economically disadvantaged and it’s obvious that their standing in society needs to be urgently improved but that’s neither here nor there in this discussion around colourism. Sure there’s a degree of correlation but colour is an imperfect proxy for caste or economic status as all castes or classes have people of pretty much all skin tones. This is blindingly obvious to anyone who’s actually lived in India but you seem very keen on viewing this through the binary US-centric racial lens which doesn’t apply here at all.
@Siddharth
Agree with your point. By citing socio-economically depressed people as the archetype of the aasi type is itself a kind of internalized complex. One could also use natgeo images of sunbaked jaat or gujjar women, rather than actresses, as the archetype of the most steppe-shifted population, but they don’t.
In my own family, the folks who were raise abroad, in indian metros or as agriculturalists in villages, all look drastically different from each other. Nurture matters and while everyone deserves dignity , admiration is reserved for those who manifest perceived virtue. A nephew and niece of mine who are US-raised are quite dark by family-standards but are tall, healthy, athletic, fashionable and confident. I don’t detect a shred of inferiority in them and even the most parochial extended family members perceive them as anomalously beautiful, such that skin tone isn’t even regarded. Racial differences are real, but a shame if they are used as a cope for lack of respect earned.
‘Brothers, I do not agree with the idea that darkest folks have sharper features or more “classic beauty” Indian looks. We have a diverse range of looks, and plenty of us have flat features and appearances that are currently construed as “ugly” by the majority of Indians and South Asians, brown and beige folks included. ‘
If u read my comments carefully, I have agreed with u, Gh78.
@Saurav
I agree with your views brother, I simply wanted to reply to both people in one post. Sorry if it was not clear.
my mum is dark. same as these other women. And i did have a crush on few ladies of similar skin types and in one case, as dark as can be without much beauty but purely for character. So, there is that.
lol the fact that you have to bring up character means that you are implying the “darkness” is in fact a physical flaw. That’s the whole point of all of this
@thewarlock
Exactly. Everyone thinks they are not prejudiced towards darker skin and AASI shifted features but they are subconsciously always looking for redeeming traits when someone has dark or black skin and high AASI faces, as if it is a sin or a major flaw to have melanin rich skin and to be born this way. You never see this with fairer skinned people. “She is fair but she has sharp features/good character/good IQ/hard working” etc. The fact of the matter is, South Asian society simply thinks of us as beneath them and born inferior, and every step of our life, we have to go to great lengths to prove how we arent any lesser for the simple accident of our birth.
i mean a lot of what you say is obviously true. don’t know the point about you going on at length about this.
@Razib
Sorry if it seemed a bit much, I am just disappointed to see well meaning folks saying things that reek of prejudice without realizing it. It shows that they possess an unconscious bias towards high AASI folks like us while claiming to be free of such noxious ideologies. Some are on this forum. I have seen the same in real life too, so I thought I would write about it on this forum as it has many people from South Asian communities. It helps people identify their prejudices and work to remove it. Its also important to spread awareness of our cause. People think that such colorist and racist attitudes do not exist in urban metros and young generations, but the opposite is true. It is still very much alive and has only gotten worse in some cases, just hidden better.
@GH78
Don’t tire yourself out. Pace yourself when you argue with some of these types. Often times, it isn’t even worth it to begin with. The best is to convince people in the grey zone. Trust me. I have been arguing with anti- AASI people online for a long time now. They have called me every insult in the book. They have attempted to dox me. It is deeply prejudiced group of people. These inegalitarian views literally run millennia deep. It will take a lot to overcome. Baby steps my dude
Interestingly, All states/regions of South Asia has native dalit populations, I wonder, why Punjab doesn’t have any native Dalit population unlike other regions in South Asia.
are you unable ot read a map? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalit#:~:text=Scheduled%20Caste%20communities%20exist%20across,country's%20total%20Scheduled%20Caste%20population.
I meant they are not indigenous to Punjab region
The majority of Chuhras/Christians and Chamars do indeed look different to your average Punjabi, there’s nothing racist about pointing out this observation. The reason for this is simple; they aren’t native to the Punjab & Sindh, they were mainly Goan Catholics brought over by the British to do menial work from the Deccan region, later settling here with many adopting Islam alongside the culture and language of their hosts.
This becomes even more obvious when looking at it genetically, because of just how much they stand out from the typical Pakistani clusters: https://imgur.com/a/tghaXsx
Jats, Khatris and Arains are typical Punjabis and those Dalits are migrants imo.
this sounds like bullshit. 20% of the population are migrants?
Biradri supremacists will do all they can to disown their 20-30% higher AASI population, just like the new “Indus Gang” disowns Gujarat as part of the IVC. It doesn’t fit the narrative. The degree of genetic difference in Punjab, if anything, points to the power of Brahmanistic Hindu influence in that area. Even if the center was gangetic plains, clearly endogamy is among the strongest in Punjab. There is little cline with the dalits. They aren’t genetically integrated at all. Untouchability seems to be most literal there.
@Jatt_2123
This is fantasy brother. Dalits and other people of the soil and the true natives of the land. Even in Ponjab. The Aryan invasion doesnt mean they are now intruders. If anything, it is the other way around. All South Asians have a right to be in this land, but we Dalits have a stronger claim than anyone else, ironically despite the way we are treated. Similar to native american tribe treatment in the US.
@Gh78
How do you figure that dalits or adivasis have a *greater* right to live on this land than other groups? The genocide of native americans was ongoing as recently as 150 years ago. Are we to think the rights and liabilities associated with population displacement go back indefinitely, to prehistory?
Leaving this stuff aside…
What is the difference between a “punjabi tribe” and a “punjabi caste” ?
Why are dalits a caste for eg. But Jatts or Khatris are a tribe.
@Sumit
Caste is coded as Hindu. “Tribe” is so we don’t accidently notice familiar social structures. It isn’t pejorative or connote primitiveness up there because the nearby pashtuns do it
It could all be true, but pray tell me how else is one supposed to say otherwise but to make those empirical points.