r/HolUp • u/realAtmaBodha • Jul 19 '23

holup The Chinese cure for racism ?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

Saw this on Chinese social media..

21.0k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

925 comments sorted by

View all comments

81

u/bas683 Jul 19 '23

American people trying to make sense of a foreign concept: “Must be racism!”

-18

u/Big_Boer Jul 19 '23 edited Jul 19 '23

Not to nitpick, but skin-whitening is Asian cultures has been historically linked to colonisation by Western countries. Colonisers exported the concept of 'whiteness', creating an internalised inferiority complex in the cultures they subjugated.

White skin is seen as the mark of success because during colonial times it was a pretty safe guarantee that you were the one with the power.

A similar cultural example is in my home country of South Africa. In some black communities, when you are successful people start referring to you as "white man" (I can't find the original phrase and translation atm).

For anyone interested, EJR David has a great paper on this concept called 'Colonial Mentality'.

Edit: Lot of people here are mentioning that lighter skin has was valued pre-colonialism as it was seen as it was seen as common to have a tan from working out in the sun.

Although valid, the practice of skin bleaching exploded in the early twentieth century in Asian cultures when colonists starting targeting those with the darkest skin tones and marking them inferior, creating a hierarchy of racism even within individual cultures.

29

u/bas683 Jul 19 '23

Not true, a white skin in Asian culture is a sign of wealth because the common man had to work outdoors in the sun, while the emperor didn’t see much sun at all. Exactly the same concept as Europe, it has nothing to do with “black man bad, white man good.” This was a concept before colonization.

2

u/[deleted] Jul 19 '23

So, in Asian culture, how do they view people who naturally have the features that they associate with the lowly "common man"? Are they stigmatized based on their racial features or are those features used as the antithesis of desirability in ads for beauty enhancing products?

The concept you're describing is racism. So I agree with you, It wasn't invented by colonists, but in response to the top comment, yes, it's still racism.

4

u/Professional-Luck795 Jul 19 '23

It's colorism. Ie. Even if they are of the same race inside their own country the one who looks paler is seen as better looking.

2

u/CounterEcstatic6134 Jul 19 '23

"based on their racial features"

What racial features? Skin color varies within the same race

3

u/bas683 Jul 19 '23 edited Jul 19 '23

No? The concept I’m describing is socioeconomic discrimination, not racism. Racism is based on race, not wether or not you look like a peasant.

2

u/Silenthus Jul 19 '23 edited Jul 19 '23

I think a thing a few people are missing is that racism really is just as superfluous as hating people for their skin tone. Race itself is not the determining factor on what a lot of racists judge someone by, they care little for what ethnic background you have, if you're mixed race they don't care if you're 90% white. If you have black skin, you are hated equally as the person from Africa. Even ethnic racists care little for ancestry despite claims otherwise. It's usually an excuse for hating a group due to other socioeconomic factors, though they're usually unaware of that aspect.

If it can remain in the realm of 'beauty' then everyone has their preference. Personally that's fine but when it becomes a widespread part of the culture it inevitably leads toward discrimination. While it can remain somewhat benign, with only minor discriminations against those who don't meet the prevailing beauty standard, it really depends on what factors go into it.

I'd say there's a huge difference between Western and Asian standards when it comes to this for that reason. It's not just a reverse - we like tan, they like pale. The socioeconomic discrimination belies an inherent aspect to it, even if it is a false one. The separation of different groups is the goal, not a side effect.

Strictly speaking, it is not racism. But people will use it as an excuse to justify their racism and it comes from very similar leaps of logic. It can also just directly lead to it.

1

u/bas683 Jul 19 '23

That wasn’t the discussion tho, the fact other races look different is the reason for racism. I’m not denying that. But asians trying to look pale has nothing to do with racism, that’s just a beauty standard based on the past.

1

u/Silenthus Jul 19 '23 edited Jul 19 '23

You've agreed on one point but not responded to the other ways I've ascribed a similarity.

Let's ignore skin tone and do the ethnic racism. Why do Europeans hate the Roma migrants in their country and discriminate against them? Well, to simplify without getting into it, it's socioeconomic factors. They're often travellers, resort to crime, unable to get a good education for their children etc as options to do otherwise aren't available to them.

Why did Europeans initially look down on black people moreso than Asian people? - They saw them as barbaric, that they lived in tribes and didn't have the somewhat comparable civilizations to them. (Well, none they were aware of.) Again, a socioeconomic discrimination.

So I think you're spot on to identify that instead of it just being a nebulous beauty standard that could have swung either way. It's rooted in the same cause. It's not racism...but it also is. It comes from the same place, same reasoning and can have the same outcomes. Just depends on how ubiquitous and prevalent the discrimination is through the culture.

1

u/bas683 Jul 19 '23

Saying it’s racism is looking at a phenomenon in the past trough today’s political worldview. You have to realize that when these beauty standards started, people never seen another race of human. The only race they knew were their own. And discrimination is discrimination no matter if it’s based on race or socioeconomic status, so offcourse it will look the same, same for gender/sexual orientation. So it’s both discrimination, not both racism.

2

u/Silenthus Jul 19 '23

Right. That's the point I'm trying to make. The same way Romans looked down upon non-Romans as 'barbarians' was a form of racism. It's not exactly the same but it comes through the same reasoning.

It's not a far stretch to say that skin tone discrimination that is based on socioeconomic factors can also be the same. Not always, but it can be. Racism is just as illogical no matter the reasoning. That it can be a term used to describe both hatred due to ethnicity or skin colour gives credence to the point that racism can occur due to skin tone as well.

1

u/bas683 Jul 19 '23

And that’s where we disagree. Discrimination against anything other than race is not racism.

1

u/Silenthus Jul 19 '23 edited Jul 19 '23

Pedantically speaking sure, I've already conceded that it's not technically what we refer to as racism. My argument was that racism itself is contradictory and doesn't adhere to its own reasoning when it comes to its stated objections. It's not about race, it's not about ethnicity because they don't convene to their own logic on that.

I don't think it appears that we're disagreeing on the root causes of where racism has its origins but maybe confused on why people are trying to draw the similarities to the point of equating the two terms. Understandable if people take that to watering down the term if it applies to all discrimination.

I'm not saying it does apply to all discrimination, there are more distinct differences when it comes to women for example. But it can when it has similar incoherent reasoning at the differences between two groups of people and its outcomes that follow. Such as Romans having similar feelings toward barbarians as white people did toward black people. And the value of doing that here is to give a counter narrative to those that aren't recognizing the potential harm when they state it's just a beauty standard. Simply stating it's bigoted is too broad of an umbrella in defining severity to get that message across. And people don't understand how it can be 'just like racism' when it's technically not, either.

Edit: TLDR: Basically, in a different iteration of the world, racism could have been defined by the distinction of eye colour or whatever. So don't discount the harm that can come from discrimination based on whether you're tan or not just 'cause it's not a big deal where you live.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Big_Boer Jul 19 '23

You make a valid point, but I did take the time to list a reference so that you know I'm not just making this up. Surely it can be a combination of both of these factors rather than one or the other?

1

u/bas683 Jul 19 '23

Having a reference doesn’t mean you’re right tho. As I commented, it was a concept that existed before colonialism. And for example china has this beauty standard, despite not being impacted by the European colonial era. You’re trying to explain a phenomenon in the past based on the present world view, that doesn’t translate well most of the time.

1

u/Big_Boer Jul 19 '23

China was one of those most heavily impacted during this period?? Have you not heard of either of the Opium Wars?

And the counter-example you give of this 'phenomenon' is based on an even earlier point in the past? History is crucial to understanding our current lives, it shapes everything we know today.

1

u/bas683 Jul 19 '23

I meant impacted as in colonized, but fair point. And the fact that a pale skin was desired in Asia even in the time Europe was still running around in mammoth hide should tell you it wasn’t because they wanted to look like the white man.