The utter ignorance of such commentaries goes with the state of "intellectual" debate in India.
Skin color comments are not "race" or "racism." Like someone saying "my sister was fair and I was dark, so she was preferred" does not mean they were different *races*. 🤣
Skin color comments are not "race" or "racism." Like someone saying "my sister was fair and I was dark, so she was preferred" does not mean they were different *races*. 🤣
https://twitter.com/zoo_bear/status/1270988431259086848
"English" Indians have these completely dumb debates because they have to fit themselves into categories of the West. "Massah has racism, we must also have racism."
Race is a particular construction in European history and consciousness, with a genesis in the Bible.
Race is a particular construction in European history and consciousness, with a genesis in the Bible.
In Risley's census of India, he tries to fit European race theory into mapping "castes." Race theory was "scientific" & "rational"—a "progressive" idea of post-"enlightenment" Europe.
He uses factors including "nasal index" and eye size to classify races. Skin color is just one.
He uses factors including "nasal index" and eye size to classify races. Skin color is just one.
Scientific racism emerges from Biblical . Remember the Bible was still "gospel truth" for Europe, and social "scientists" internalized this.
They believed that humans descended from Noah and different races came from his different sons.
jstor.org/stable/2953314…
They believed that humans descended from Noah and different races came from his different sons.
jstor.org/stable/2953314…
Noah's son Ham was evil and he was believed to be cursed to be Black. This Abrahamic belief drove the idea of the inferiority of Black Africans and their "evil" nature ("darkness of their souls.") This provided Abrahamic justifications for slavery.
nytimes.com/2003/11/01/art…
nytimes.com/2003/11/01/art…
Scientific racism constructed race, based on different Risley-like attributes, then theorized the "inherent" superiority or inferiority of different races. Black was inferior and evil per Bible.
Race is a construction, propagated by "civilized" Europeans.
docs.google.com/viewer?url=htt…
Race is a construction, propagated by "civilized" Europeans.
docs.google.com/viewer?url=htt…
There is no such concept in Indic traditions. Shiva, Krishna, Kali are all dark-skinned. Krishna literally means dark. Rama is also dark. Krishna and Rama are the most beautiful and alluring. None of this has anything to do with "race." This construct does not exist in the Indic.
So how did the skin color preference come about in India? As an artifact of Islam and European colonization. Their prejudices transferred and the "ruling" /"elite" classes were seen as fair-skinned.
The recent obsession is more from "modernity" and the English slave-culture.
The recent obsession is more from "modernity" and the English slave-culture.
Even so, skin color preference as a beauty marker is not "racism." So English #SlaveIndians just blabber stuff like "Indians are the most racist" without having a clue of what race is, as a European artifact, and what racism means.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
