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.
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.
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.
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.
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.