- #1
Loren Booda
- 3,125
- 4
Besides medical concerns, what would be the outcome of interchanging people's light complexions with those dark? What effect do you think it would have on racism?
Loren Booda said:Besides medical concerns, what would be the outcome of interchanging people's light complexions with those dark? What effect do you think it would have on racism?
Extremely well saidJasongreat said:It seems to me that one of the main drivers of human beings is to stand apart from others. Some choose hard work, education, and other positive ways, while others do so by tearing down others based on the differences between them and the other. The easiest way to point out differences is through race or the color of their skin. If you just change everyones color to be the same, some people will just look for less obvious differences and use those the same way they are using the color of skin now. So imo if we spend billions(or more) to change everyones skin color we would only accumulate a big debt and wouldn't succeed at what the OP seems to be implying would happen. Besides that, I believe doing so kind of validates the racists since you are basically saying that we can't be equal until we are all the same color. Its not the color of skin that causes racism, it is the belief that a person that is different is less of a person because of those differences and since differences would still remain changing color wouldn't solve a thing,imo.
Quite true. And I do think this is getting at what Loren was hoping for in the way of discussion.Jasongreat said:It seems to me that one of the main drivers of human beings is to stand apart from others. Some choose hard work, education, and other positive ways, while others do so by tearing down others based on the differences between them and the other. The easiest way to point out differences is through race or the color of their skin. If you just change everyones color to be the same, some people will just look for less obvious differences and use those the same way they are using the color of skin now. So imo if we spend billions(or more) to change everyones skin color we would only accumulate a big debt and wouldn't succeed at what the OP seems to be implying would happen. Besides that, I believe doing so kind of validates the racists since you are basically saying that we can't be equal until we are all the same color. Its not the color of skin that causes racism, it is the belief that a person that is different is less of a person because of those differences and since differences would still remain changing color wouldn't solve a thing,imo.
DaveC426913 said:Quite true. And I do think this is getting at what Loren was hoping for in the way of discussion.
Your argument (thesis) is that racism is objective - an independent entity that would exist regardless of details. The antithesis is that racism is inextricably linked to its historical source - the way things happen to have played out. Say, instead, if Caucasians had been enslaved and brought by ship from Europe to Africa.
In short: is bias biased.
Loren Booda said:Besides medical concerns, what would be the outcome of interchanging people's light complexions with those dark? What effect do you think it would have on racism?
BobG said:Rwanda. Hutus (the majority) were visibly darker skinned than the Tutsis. Hutus killed nearly 10,000 Tutsis a day from April 1994 to July 1994 (somewhere between 800,000 to 1,000,000 total).
The actual color of a person's skin has little to do with racial or ethnic biases. The skin color just makes it easier to identify those from a different culture.
The bigger issue is how different small groups can live in a larger combined society without losing their small group traits (or being belittled for them).
Those differences always create stress that exist regardless of skin color. In fact, that was one of the concerns Arab countries had about Iraq. Sunnis and Shiites live together peacefully in most countries, but there's always some underlying tension. Igniting an ethnic civil war in Iraq raises the magnitude of the ethnic tensions in neighboring Arab states.
Skin color just makes things tougher for the individual. He can't move seamlessly from one group to another. A white hick from the backwoods of Appalachia could adopt a more sophisticated lifestyle and people wouldn't know he used to be a hick. A black tends to be classified as being raised in the ghetto even if they were raised in middle class suburbia. In fact, adopting a middle class "white" lifestyle gets him belittled by both whites and blacks. That's an issue of whether an individual can choose their own culture (and is a valid issue). It doesn't address how different cultures can live in the same society.
With white people it's the opposite; we want to be darker.Even beyond differences in race, lighter skin is seen as a sign of power and affluence. Rich people don't have to work in the fields under a blazing sun and don't develop deep tans.
While Western media has to have some affect on younger Indians, the preference for lighter skin goes back further than can be explained just by modern media.
This has only been in the last few decades. Before that, alabaster skin was the rage. Centuries ago, women used to soak in vinegar to get a pale complexion.leroyjenkens said:With white people it's the opposite; we want to be darker.
DaveC426913 said:This has only changed recently when tans became fashionable. I'm not sure why tans are fashionable now.
BobG said:Perhaps because manual laborers work indoors on assembly lines while rich people lounge around on the beach? Same idea as always, but our work environment and our leisure environment have changed.
Fat people were also more attractive back then.DaveC426913 said:This has only been in the last few decades. Before that, alabaster skin was the rage. Centuries ago, women used to soak in vinegar to get a pale complexion.
A pale complexion was a sign of someone who was successful enough to not have to work out in the sun. Dark skin was the sign of a manual labourer.
This has only changed recently when tans became fashionable. I'm not sure why tans are fashionable now. I suspect that it is linked to the fitness craze driving people outdoors. A tanned person gives the impression of an outdoorsy, sportsy person, thus someone who is taking care of their health. Additionally a tan gives the impression of increased leisure time with which to go to tropical locales.
The potential outcome of interchanging people's light complexions with those dark is difficult to predict, as it would depend on various factors such as the genetic makeup of the individuals, their environment, and their lifestyle. However, it is likely that there would be significant physical and social changes for both groups of people.
It is possible that the interchanged individuals may experience both health risks and benefits. For example, those with darker complexions may have a lower risk of skin cancer due to increased melanin production, while those with lighter complexions may be at a higher risk for vitamin D deficiency due to reduced sun exposure.
Society's perception and treatment of the interchanged individuals would likely change, as physical appearance is often linked to societal norms and biases. This could result in discrimination, prejudice, or even preferential treatment towards one group over the other.
The psychological effects of interchanging people's complexions are difficult to predict, as they would vary from person to person. However, it is possible that the sudden change in physical appearance may cause a sense of identity crisis or difficulty in adjusting to a new societal perception of oneself.
From a scientific perspective, this scenario raises ethical concerns and would likely be deemed unethical and immoral. It goes against the basic principles of human rights and individual autonomy. Furthermore, it would be challenging to find a valid scientific reason to justify such an experiment.