Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virex]

Skin bleaching was actually very popular in the west for a long time (as the rich didn't need to labour all day in the sun). It was only when factories and offices started getting popular, meaning the average person became pale, and many of the rich took a liking to exotic vacations and lots of our door leisure activities, did the situation reverse.

I've heard that the rise of alpinism and skiing was what caused the turnaround, as those who went into the mountains came back with a tan.


Besides during the ancient times, a light tan was preferred to a heavy tan (which farmers had) or no tan (typical of people that worked indoors like weavers and potters)

[Truean]

People always strive to look like whoever is "in charge", and in a lot of these places those in charge are whie people or, at the very least, people who probably don't need to work outside.

See people blackening their teeth and ruining their mouths so as to better look like the rich nobles who could afford things like sugar (and had the mouth disease to show for it)

Skin bleaching was actually very popular in the west for a long time (as the rich didn't need to labour all day in the sun). It was only when factories and offices started getting popular, meaning the average person became pale, and many of the rich took a liking to exotic vacations and lots of our door leisure activities, did the situation reverse.

Or something like that, maybe I need to go find some sources...

Anyways, I don't see how selling something people want is racist. It may enable racism, but it is not really racist in and of itself (though the advertising for such products could quickly become so!)

.... Respectfully, you're missing something absolutely huge here. This is one of the clearest examples of historical racism in business ever.... It is without exaggeration the text book example. History of racist product advertising + current racist product advertisement = racist.

No really, look through this racist shit, all of the "dirty" people are black and all the "clean" people are white and they literally use the phrase "white man's burden" to show how it is the job of the "superior" whites to clean up the rest of the world because all the other "inferior" people are too stupid to do it themselves.
http://www.answers.com/topic/the-white-man-s-burden
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden
http://www.kontraband.com/pics/21119/Racist-Soap-Ads/?gpage=1#show

Past racist product advertising (these people invented the modern use of the racist term "tar baby")
http://oldtimestore.flyingcart.com/index.php?p=detail&pid=3&cat_id=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_baby#Racial_element_in_modern_usage

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Don't even think about saying the seller above is selling "African American History." They aren't. That is a bullshit cover.

As for the current stuff:
http://www.racialicious.com/2008/05/30/fair-and-lovely-ad-lighter-skin-better-job-prospects/
How do you somehow not see the blatantly racist message here:

"If you are white, then you get the job. Fuck your four year degrees, you and what you know. The key to your success is having lighter skin and that's the way it should be. Don't ask for tolerance or for people to look at you based upon what you know (your degree) or your ability. It is and should be all about skin color. Not to worry, we cater to this crap...."

Honestly, how on earth can anyone not see this?

The message is and has been forever with these racist soap sellers:
Black people are dirty; white people are clean; it is the duty of the superior whites to clean the blacks.
The only beautiful, successful people are white and rather than understanding black people we should change them....

There absolutely is no valid innocent interpretation here. I'm sorry, but if you don't see it, then you're missing it.... Nothing to do with tan, nothing to do with pale skin, everything to do with history repeating itself. You can't give racists the benefit of the doubt, because then anything that is not blatantly, overtly racist isn't racist. Things like this don't hold up a sign saying "racist thing."

People are trying to look at this from some kind of historical academic "scope of all history" thing.... Not applicable. Modern racism against African Americans started in the colonial period and the whole "white man's burden" soap thing was from then, because it was a "justification" for colonialism.

More racist soap stuff:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://www.bvonmoney.com/2010/12/15/racist-soap-indiana-store-fox-news/
http://www.theawl.com/2010/12/today-in-racism-soap-and-cupcakes
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/indiana-residents-support-racist-kolored-kids-soap-seller/
http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images?_adv_prop=image&fr=yfp-t-701&va=racism+in+soap
http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-growing-support-for-noblesvill-120910,0,7059716.story
(even fox news calls it racist...?)
http://www.queerty.com/horrible-gary-dewester-does-not-understand-why-his-darkie-and-fairy-soap-products-are-terrible-20101208/

My god, look at the sheer number of anti black racist profanities used on those soaps....

[Siquo]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/nivea-pulls-offensive-ad-185220424.html

Famous second to last words, "What? I know what I'm doing, I don't need a lawyer telling me my business."

Famous last words, "Shit, I should've had someone, like maybe a lawyer, look this over."

Would it have been racist if it were a white male throwing a head with an 80's heavy metal haircut?
If yes then I miss the point, if no then the law (read: jury/judges) is racist (for sueing only defamation of black people and not white) and not the ad. There's "taking things too far" and then there's the USA.

[MonkeyHead]

There was a sunscreen advert in australia that was pulled due to racist complaints. It featured 2 aboriginies using it to protect the palms of thier hands and the soles of thier feet.

Once it was pulled there were more complaints.

Basically it transpired that it was 99.99% white people that complained it was offensive. When it was pulled apparently the aboriginal community was up in arms as they thought it was hilarious.

Searched youtube loads for the advert but to no avail.

[GlyphGryph]

You seemed to miss the fact where I said simply selling skin-bleach is not racist, but that there's clear potential and incentive for racist advertising to move the product, and when you've got a market where the incentives are lined up the way they are, of course you'll get stuff like this. (And in your examples, its pretty obviously racist)

The thing is, though, the people in these companies? They don't care if you're white or black, they just want to make you feel as terrible about yourself as possible. And it works, especially in cultures that already have that sort of sentiment where the feel a cultural push to have lighter skin.

Of course there's no "innocent" interpretation - everything these sort of companies do is at the least immoral and more commonly horrifically insulting and demeaning. They are definitely the enemy of any movement that seeks to make people comfortable with who they are, the racial equality movement included. But from what I've seen, the people in the industry would have absolutely no qualms pushing skin bleach and blackface at the same time if they thought they could get it to work. To them, racism and racial insecurity is just another tool to be exploited, and I'm not denying that.

I'm just saying that simply selling a beauty product that people want is not inherently racist.

[Vector]

I'm just saying that simply selling a beauty product that people want is not inherently racist.

Supply creates its own demand.

Would it have been racist if it were a white male throwing a head with an 80's heavy metal haircut?

No, because white people do not have a history of being portrayed as beasts and animals in general.

If the counterpoint were a white woman, then it would be misandrist.  As men are currently "on top," however, there is not that assumed counterpoint, as there is in the black instance.

[GlyphGryph]

Supply creates its own demand.

Citation? If supply created its own demand, I doubt companies would spend this much on advertising. Mind you, if cultural forces are already pushing a demand, but are acting against supply limitations, it's possible to see how that could have a demand-reducing effect... but even then, the supply that allows such beliefs to flourish are only a component, and not I think a crucial one.

No, because white people do not have a history of being portrayed as beasts and animals in general.

Though it doesn't have a name, I wouldn't be surprised if they had a white guy throwing, like, a hippy head either. (because they are also stereotyped as dirty and uncivilized). Obviously, this would affect a much smaller number of people, is based on voluntary association, and the correlation isn't strong or as widesweeping, making it far less damaging. The reason ads like this are as terrible as they are is because of the context in which they occur, really, but there's not really any circumstance in which they are "good".

[Willfor]

Supply creates its own demand.

Citation? If supply created its own demand, I doubt companies would spend this much on advertising. Mind you, if cultural forces are already pushing a demand, but are acting against supply limitations, it's possible to see how that could have a demand-reducing effect... but even then, the supply that allows such beliefs to flourish are only a component, and not I think a crucial one.

Your knowledge of the history of selling sanitary products is somewhat lacking. The advertisements ARE what creates the demand. The industry pays so much for advertising because they know they can get exactly what they want from it: the opening of new markets by the force of actually creating the markets in the first place. They make people feel uncomfortable about their bodies through advertisements that show what ~healthy and clean~ people are supposed to look like, and then sell the products designed to fill these "needs". It's called preemptive advertising. People make a ton of fucking money doing this, and so it continues on into the future.

[GlyphGryph]

I'm beginning to suspect none of you ever understand what I am trying to say. Am I honestly communicating that poorly? (The answer is apparently yes, I suppose that was a rhetorical question)

Whatever, I clearly need to stop participating in this thread since I am clearly incapable of projecting my thoughts correctly. Blegh.

[Darvi]

I'm beginning to suspect none of you ever understand what I am trying to say. Am I honestly communicating that poorly? (The answer is apparently yes, I suppose that was a rhetorical question)

To be honest, I too am confused at what Willfor was trying to say.

But then again that's maybe just me.

[Willfor]

I think I misread what you were saying. whatevs.

I do get what you're trying to say in the grand scheme of things, that being a merchant of something is not an inherently racist act. However, I think the idea you're trying to get across is too inherently tied into /another/ thing that we're talking about here. One that inherently preys on societal fears for profit. In that case, it is like trying to defend the idea that the act of consuming food is inherently a necessary act, when everyone is trying to talk about a bowel parasite. Yes, eating food is a necessary fact of life, but no one really wants to talk about that minute detail, because we want to talk about it's relation to the bowel parasite.

[Lysabild]

No, because white people do not have a history of being portrayed as beasts and animals in general.

Really depends on where and when.

[Siquo]

Supply creates its own demand.

If only I had a dollar for every time I heard someone say that. (Which I don't, so that statement is false.) Advertisement does, however. Willfor refers to advertisement creating the need. Everyone needs to read this at least once. It's on how things we find normal now (deodorant, bad breath spray), were once created needs by advertisements.

Would it have been racist if it were a white male throwing a head with an 80's heavy metal haircut?

No, because white people do not have a history of being portrayed as beasts and animals in general.

In this thread I have seen nothing but.

[Phmcw]

Would it have been racist if it were a white male throwing a head with an 80's heavy metal haircut?

No, because white people do not have a history of being portrayed as beasts and animals in general.

In this thread I have seen nothing but.

I hope you're not accusing us of racism against the whites, mister Anderson.

Edit : joke appart this may be worth investigating :http://current.com/community/93403315_rick-perry-has-a-big-porn-problem.htm?xid=PTNiGoog It could be damning for Rick perry.

[RedKing]

No, because white people do not have a history of being portrayed as beasts and animals in general.

Really depends on where and when.

Agreed. Jews (depending on whether or not you consider them 'white'), the Irish, Germans, Russians, Italians, etc.

Jews and Italians in particular have a long history of being depicted as rat-like in propaganda. Anti-German propaganda in WWI had "the Hun" being about as close to nonhuman as possible.