Submitted by Pfeffer_Prinz t3_126sj3j in todayilearned
Reply to comment by Daniel_The_Thinker in TIL in the 1920s, Coco Chanel accidentally got a tan, and helped inspire the trend of sunbathing. Soon "sunlight therapy" was prescribed for almost every ailment from fatigue to tuberculosis. Before this, tanned skin was associated with the lower classes who work outside, and fair skin was revered. by Pfeffer_Prinz
That's true in Japan and Korea, but it's not true everywhere. In India and some other South(east) Asian countries, there's more than one ethnicity, and some of them different in their typical skin color. I don't know why people from the US think dark-skinned places only have a single ethnicity.
Skin colors being based on different ethnicities is immaterial to the post, unless you have examples of cases where the people of lighter skinned ethnicities do not look down upon the people with darker skin because of their color. I would bet that an Aryan Indian parent would prefer their child marry another lighter-skinned Indian than a darker skinned one, even if it's normal for that ethnicity to be darker
... I know?
Different ethnic groups aren't really different "races" either though.
If you want to be pedantic, there's no such thing as "race" in the first place. It isn't a scientific concept, can't be defined, and can't be tested.
Ethnicity is a real thing though, and in places like India, you have (for example) dark-skinned Dravidians in parts of the country and then light-skinned Aryan-descended people in the north.
These are people with historically different cultures who mostly stayed within their ethnicity, leading to them having stereotypically different skin colors -- what we could call "race" in the US.
I know, that's why I put race in quotations. There are plenty of ethnic groups in Europe that can be visually told apart, no one considers them different races.
actually i seem to recall a certain someone talking about the aryan race
Which doesn't really exist as he imagined it at all.
Dude it's literally Hitler, no one got into that shit as much as him and his ilk. The average European did not give it the much thought.
You are making an argument that discriminating based on ethnicity instead of race isnt racism than proceed to say that races dont exist, while also ignoring the fact that literally all of europe has hated jews pretty much since they existed until the end of ww2, and anti semitism was very fashionable during that era anywhere in europe...
What exactly is your point even?
Race is not a meaningful category in a scientific sense but it certainly exists in people's minds as its own category that comes with its own set of prejudices.
You can have an abused ethnic group within a majority race, case in point, Jews suffer from anti semitism but they would've been allowed to drink from white only water fountains because they were perceived as white.
It's really not that complicated, I don't understand your confusion to be honest.
Im not sure if there ever were "white only" water fountains in europe. Just because one ethnic group is discriminated against less than another one, doesnt mean one is considered a "race" and the other an "ethnicity". You are just coming up with random definitions on the spot to suit your narrative and i am quite confused about what that narrative is even supposed to be, especially since you use race and ethnicity interchangeably in other comments and suddenly make a distinction here.
At no point did I ever use race and ethnicity interchangeably. And the water fountain is called an example. Another example, after the Spanish reconquest, Jews and Arabs were exiled from Spain. Jews were allowed to stay if they converted to Christianity, but Arabs were not allowed regardless of their religion.
Ive been clear enough, you're being willfully ignorant if you can't understand these simple concepts.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments