@TT your icon is pure white?
Most of the article is good- anyone who has been to India knows that, like China/Taiwan, white skin is considered desirable. Where it goes wrong is attributing that to foreign influence. In India, like China, fairer skinned interlopers from the north established rule over darker southerners; establishing the “whiter is better” rule. The British Raj’s racism didn’t help, but wasn’t the underlying cause.
Another factor is the fact that working outside in the sun as a farmer or labourer meant you were lower-class and looked down on. Upper-class people (women especially) stayed indoors, and thus had fairer skin, This was reversed in the West with the spread of factories and offices. Now having tanned skin meant you could afford to go on holiday in hotter climes.
I took my wife to China in 1990, when there were still vestiges of Maoism. She, being Taiwanese, remarked on the image of the women in official posters- dark- skinned, tanned, and rosy-cheeked peasants and workers. The private ads just appearing showed more pale-skinned beauties, like in Taiwan.
Thats the mental i get when people talk about trump eating [someone] out.
Your mind goes to strange places.
Who does that?
Also add to the equation that colonialism brought chili peppers (as well as other spices from the New World) to Asia as a whole … And it adds even more problematic-ness to the whole equation.
On a side note, what did Indian food taste like pre -colonial times? Thai? Korean? There are sooo many Asian foods that I couldn’t imagine without spiciness; it is mind blowing that the humble chili comes from Mexico, and wasn’t in Asian food at all up to that point.
18 posts were split to a new topic: History of chili peppers
While you are correct that the single article I provided didn’t prove the entire point, and that the point was written with a bit of obvious hyperbole, if you think there aren’t more academics claiming that homophobia, patriarchy, chattel slavery, etc. were a problem cause by Europeans you are not only mistaken, you are demonstrating something that could be described as follows:
You can find all kinds of weird crap in academia. I have no trouble imagining that some academic person somewhere (maybe even a professor! ) said more or less what you said the other guy said (which he didn’t say).
But if actual academic extremism is so abundant, why did you cite something that doesn’t come close to it?
You’re reminding me of Mr. GiT.
Try harder, eh?
(PS. And do watch the “Science Must Fall?” video in that thread – good entertainment.)
We were talking about white skin, I cited something relevant to that conversation which also supported my broader point (2 birds/1 stone, decent example from a reliable source). I could have spent more time finding more and better sources to strengthen the defence of my already admittedly hyperbolic stance more, but I’ve found the Formosans I engage with on these topics either
- already agree, or
- disagree so strongly they won’t do the reading that is provided
Either way, there isn’t much incentive for me to craft careful arguments with irrefutable evidence. That is something I have learned about Forumosa, and, broadly, arguing anonymously with strangers on the Internet. At some point, there isn’t much point in putting in the time that others won’t, and then the only reason to type is to have some fun.
I’ve shared one video on this in the CRT in NH thread, perhaps the same one
I don’t know who that is. But if we’re going to keep playing this game, it is still you and McNulty.
Guy in Taiwan. He used to be a regular poster.
It’s a decent example of someone mentioning European influence, along with Asian influence (the Mughals were not European), as part of a proposed explanation of a sociological phenomenon. As Mike points out, you don’t need foreign influence to get a plausible explanation of the phenomenon, but that doesn’t mean the foreign influence didn’t occur and contribute to it. The article doesn’t even dwell on the foreign angle, giving it a brief mention and then getting back to the phenomenon itself.
Can you find one thing in the article that is objectively false or even significantly misleading? If not, then why lampoon it as an overdose of wokeness? The more you go around doing that, the less seriously people will take you when you actually have a point.
I read the whole article.
Notice how we’ve gone from
- this guy said this outrageous thing
- no really he said it, not word for word but close enough
- well someone said it, and you’re in denial!
- if you don’t already agree with me, you’re probably too biased to read anything I cite.
Hence my request that you try harder.
Who says evidence of anything, especially in the “soft sciences”, needs to be irrefutable?
What, this is supposed to be tag team or something? Ain’t got time for that neither.
I’ll let GiT know
That pretty scary because her opinion is actually widely held (albeit for different reasons). At least the others in the room just laughed at her, so maybe there’s hope.