|
I realize this opinion is going to lead to me being accused of various prejudices but I really don't have a problem with skin lightening and hair straightening - except, of course, from a purely medical perspective in the sense that some of these products might be outright toxic or strongly carcinogenic, in which case they should be banned just like any sufficiently harmful cosmetic would be. But then, I don't subscribe to the beliefs of some of the left that colonialism and cultural hegemony are necessarily and always a bad thing. Historically harmful and unjust? Definitely. An indispensable part of the creation of a modern, secular, materialist global culture? Also definitely. To the OP, I would honestly suggest that those who feel pressured to engage in skin bleaching instead focus on consciously modeling their modes of dress and speech after the first world culture(s) that they identify with or want acceptance from. If they still feel insecure about their appearance, maybe suggest using hair straighteners instead of skin creams, since it's less harmful and also less drastic in terms of what we might call internalized-racist-flagellation. That being said, I am willing to be the devil's advocate and say that, in the specific case of Jamaica, wanting to make a visible break with the perceived stereotypical appearance of their native culture can absolutely be an understandable, even healthy and laudable, desire. Anti-racism is a fine cause, but in cases like this, it sometimes crosses the line into essentialist, supremacist arguments about the unique value of a particular range of skin tones. It is important to remember that skin tones have no inherent value one way or the other.
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
Preem Palver posted:So... your argument is that there is no inherent value to skin tone but Jamaicans should still strive to lighten their skin tone or otherwise appear more Anglo and less African in order to appease racist white people because otherwise Jamaicans will be valued less as individuals? Yes, and also to appease other black people who have internalized said racism. I'm aware there is a certain amount of inherent injustice, here. But when it comes to this particular nation and society, I'm of the mind to say that a little more first world cultural hegemony would be a good thing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:ah yes thats exactly what this world needs, more homogeneity. Yes. I realize that isn't a popular position to take. But I do in fact believe that the homogenizing power of western culture and media has been a profoundly positive influence. Western, Americanized consumer culture gets a lot of criticism for spreading all over the world, I think a little perspective and careful consideration of the alternatives put the lie to that. Let's go back to the initial questions in this thread. There does seem to be widespread acceptance of the (admittedly lamentable) fact that having skin darker than a certain shade imposes opportunity costs. For the record, I think the OP was on the right track in saying "if it's because they believe they'll be more successful if they're pale, I can articulate other methods of achieving success or challenge them to better describe what that success is". Certainly, skin bleaching is a delicate issue and probably best avoided in this context if only because it can lead to frightening levels of backlash. All that being said, I think trying to instill in these children the exceptional, unique value of their own particular appearance or ethnic/cultural group is the wrong response and likely to result in brittle loops of circular reasoning and naturalistic fallacies ("You shouldn't want to change your appearance, black is beautiful!" Hypothetical child: "Why is black beautiful?" "Because it is how you naturally look!"). Instead the focus should be on sending the message that skin tone, like any other aspect of their appearance, does not define them or limit their options unless they choose to let it. Maybe that isn't always true but it's the most positive way to respond to the problem I can think of without falling into the trap of essentialism. I feel like it's worth mentioning that Ghana, the country that made headlines for ordering an outright ban of skin-lightening ointments, is also a country that as of a few years ago started calling upon the citizens to inform on any neighbors or tenants they suspected of being gay so that they could be rounded up and arrested. Ethnic nationalism, including non-white ethnic nationalism, has a strong tendency to be correlated with horribly regressive attitudes. So yes, I would say that we can acknowledge that the tendency for these young people to think they need skin lightening is unfortunate, but their fellow citizens that go berserk in response have some very ugly attitudes themselves.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:
Out of curiosity do you have any examples of a nation not founded on and/or defined by "western" enlightenment principles that has or had equal social toleration (particularly where sexual minorities are concerned) and equal respect for individual rights when compared side-by-side with the modern-liberal-democracy baseline? (p.s. some kind of historical example of socially acceptable cross-dressing within, say, the confines of a patriarchal caste system, doesn't loving count. Im asking if any non-colonized nation, extant or not, offers its citizens the same latitude to citizens to make decisions about their personal lives and familial relations as a westernized liberal democracy edit: (p.p.s. please don't use the goddamn Ottoman Empire with their "we tolerate them queers so long as they keep their activities on the down low and don't challenge our state religion" policies either - especially since that latitude was only for homosexual men of a particular urban social class. I'm talking about actual, legal individual rights to live in a way that clashes with conservative social mores. It is my understanding those rights are almost nonexistent outside societies where enlightenment values have gained control of government, but by all means, prove me wrong) And what is your evidence for the anti-communalist values of liberalism (broadly defined) not leading to increased tolerance for sexual minorities and other historic pariahs? The map on wikipedia showing which nations offer full rights to homosexuals shows that it is almost completely exclusive to western or highly westernized and liberal countries None of this is to say that the specific phenomenon of 19th century European colonialism and exploitation wasn't unjust. Only that the injustice of the general process of westernization should not be overgeneralized from that example. In the 21st century context, it is generally a positive. (p.p.p.s. laying all of the blame for 'kill the gays' laws at the feet of bigoted western missionaries is almost exactly the same as saying that the holocaust was caused by the unique evil of Hitler alone and had nothing to do with the centuries-running antisemitism of German culture) Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Oct 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
woke wedding drone posted:Just close the can again, you know this is an asinine question. Why is it an asinine question? Would you excoriate a transman for contributing to the historical oppression of misogyny and patriarchy? If not, why not?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2016 17:57
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:I think we should probably leave the discredited corpse of the unilinear model of cultural evolution undisturbed in its casket where it belongs. The idea that all progress takes place along a singular trajectory with western liberal society as its defined end-point is a spurious one and arbitrarily positioning prescriptive goalposts that favour such a view is not a good strategy. Also, using the ongoing struggle for LGBT rights and recognition, which is not yet won even in so-called "enlightened, western" societies as the go-to metric can only give us some very misleading ideas of what a developed, progressive society is. Just because a law is on the books does not mean that a society is welcoming or accepting to LGBT people. France decriminalised homosexuality as far back as the revolution, but it would be idiotic to pretend that widespread acceptance of LGBT lifestyles there was the norm for anything more than the last twenty years or so, if that. Western liberal society, for most of its lifespan, has actually been actively hostile to LGBT people and it has chiefly been through the efforts of actual LGBT people - rather than paternalistic, hegemonic western governments - that LGBT rights have attained the recognition they have done in recent years. LGBT people in developing, non-western nations are undertaking similar struggles and while we should all stand in solidarity with them, they have not expressed a need for a white saviour to swoop in and impose their own decontextualised one-size-fits-all values in a reiteration of empire's civilising mission. Well, I can't exactly argue against the potshots you're taking at western liberalism since they are technically true (though there are degrees of "hostility to LGBT people", and saying that it was 'chiefly through the efforts of actual LGBT people' that said rights were established isn't exactly wrong but misleading as all hell in the context you're using it - do you mean to imply that, say, everyone who voted for Harvey Milk was gay, or even a majority of said voters? Were all of the legislators who passed hate crime legislation either gay or solely motivated by direct pressure from gay constitutients?) But I'm interested to hear what you think this beautiful, unique alternative to pernicious "paternalistic, hegemonic western governments" bringing down the gavel of law on homophobic institutions would look like. What examples can you give? Do you think that the hesitancy of LGBT persons in the developing world to advocate forthrightly for an individual-rights-based government might have something to do with tactical considerations and the necessity of survival when surrounded by millions of potentially murderous zealots without any strong legal protections to shield them? When people in the 21st century talk about "western liberalism" and "westernization" as a model for governments, they basically mean a form of government where individual rights take precedence over community standards. If you're going to have a society and government where conservative religious views inform the laws that are made and the patriarchal family and village are legally enshrined as the ultimate good and a sacrosanct cultural unit, I feel that the onus is on you to explain to me how LGBT rights and acceptance comparable to those enjoyed in the west are going to be possible. If we're to talk about extant societies instead of pie-in-the-sky theoretical utopianism - the nations that exist today, in 2016 - are there any nations aside from western liberal democracies that you would call a remotely acceptable "defined end-point", as you put it? Or do you mean to say you believe that the (admittedly unfortunate) injustices suffered by LGBT persons and other social minorities in western liberal democracies is equal and equivalent to the blatant oppression of them that exists everywhere that community standards are valued preferentially to individual rights? Because if that is the point you're getting at with all this talk of arbitrary goalposts, I don't really have anything to say in response except "gently caress YOU".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:Every society has its problems, but proposing a transplant of western cultural norms as a panacea is misguided at best. Underlying reasons for social ills like FGM and persecution of sexual minorities are best combated by a contextual approach adapted to the circumstances of the society where they're taking place and implemented by people directly invested in their outcomes. Imposing western values from above invites a culture-shocked backlash that would likely undo whatever meager good such initiatives could hope to deliver and give ammunition to a culture's homegrown reactionaries, as happened with the Taliban in Afghanistan or Boko Haram in Nigeria. If reform and modernisation is seen as the intrusive machinations of an imperial aggressor or coloniser it can't take hold and is doomed to failure. "essentialism essentialism essentialism ESSEN-TIAL-ISM" The injustice of "the intrusive machinations of an imperial aggressor or coloniser" pales in comparison to the horrific injustice which has been endemic in the nations you mention for hundreds if not thousands of years. The desirable endpoint is for those homegrown reactionaries to all be dead (preferably of old age, but as circumstances dictate)- and failing that, for them to be frozen out of the processes of government. What elements of recent history convince you that any compromise is possible or desirable with the sort of people who would join Boko Haram or the Taliban? Liberal_L33t fucked around with this message at 19:16 on Oct 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:46 |
|
|
oh, and - TomViolence posted:Every society has its problems, but proposing a transplant of
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2016 19:21
|
|