A comment at The Guardian:

“which reinforce the inherently colonial practice of “colourism” – the discrimination against individuals with a dark skin tone.”

It’s not colonial, it’s classist. Dark skin means sun exposure. That is, someone who works for a living outside in the fields. Pale skin means someone rich enough to stay inside. Thus the bits in Jane Austem where the girls worry about their bonnets for they might get freckles.

This also changed, entirely, when work for poor people moved inside and only the rich could afford to get away for a tan. Suddenly, to have a tan – darker skin – became a mark of wealth, not poverty.

A change rather reflected in make up in fact, pre WWII (about, roughly) the aim was to powder or cream the face to be pale, pale, white. Post it much foundation make up is to add colour, not take it away.

This also explains the popularity of sunbeds and fake tans, something which a century ago would have been quite literally unthinkable.

Colourism exists, most certainly, but that flip shows that it’s about class, not colonialism.

For the part about it that the colonialism reason cannot explain is why that flip.

That it’s about class also explains why colourism happens in places that never were colonies – Thailand say.

A good education on the subject would explain this…..

17 thoughts on “Educashun”

  1. Cummon, Steve. Don’t you think it’s so refreshing to learn a teen from an immigrant family is so concerned about the historic treatment of sailors in the Royal Navy?

    Or didn’t Currently, schoolchildren can go through their entire formal education without learning anything about the atrocities committed under the union jack. mean quite what it purports to.

  2. I’ve learned close to nothing about British colonial history in school; nothing about how millions were murdered, how children were packed into concentration camps, how nations were arbitrarily divided.

    Concentration camps? Fair enough, but the people put into concentration camps by the Brits were Boers. Should we teach the correct history of South Africa in British schools, i.e that the Dutch got there before black Africans?

    Nations divided? Which ones precisely?

    Millions murdered? Where? If she means the Bengal Famines, they were the result of natural disaster combined with the greed of Bengali merchants – who got a better price for their grain from the Government than their fellow Bengalis could pay.

    If she really wants to go down this road, then every Muslim needs to learn of the Armenian genocide, the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Greeks and Assyrians, the enslavement of tens of millions of black Africans and of the Million plus Europeans kidnapped and enslaved.
    The Bantu expansions and the near extermination of the Pygmies and Bushmen by them might be interesting to many too.

    I hope she’s ready for that.

  3. BiS – Yarpsolutely. It’s interesting that she wants us YTs to engage in national self-flaggellation like wot Germans do over the Holocaust.

    Germany, of course, murdered millions of Jews and other minorities, committed unspeakable atrocities across Eastern Europe, and was thoroughly humiliated and destroyed in war. Seems this lass feels like the British are a conquered people who can be similarly forced into eternal submission for the sins of their fathers.

    She’s wrong about that. Multiculti probably doesn’t have a long and happy future ahead of it anyway, but there’s few things more corrosive to what social order we still have than constantly hectoring and haranguing the natives – who still largely want to pretend that diversity is a blessing-blessing.

    It’s building up a lot of toxic emotional energy that will inevitably manifest itself in real life, in ways we probably won’t expect or like, and without the happy ending of GHOSTBUSTERS 2.

  4. How decadent to be able to tell the people you live amongst that you hate them.

    ‘A student project aims to highlight the gaping holes in history education’

    Do middle school science fair projects get national coverage, too?

  5. Colourism is about colonialism in some parts of the world. In Oman, for instance, it’s fashionable to be lighter skinned because dark skin (i.e. black) is associated with slaves. Slavery was only formally abolished in Oman in the 1970s (and some say it continues). The Omani slave trade, centred on their colony of Zanzibar, was ended in the 1800s by … erm, now who was it… er, oh yes, the British.

  6. BiS- good point.

    So Impressment was a thing, only tangentially touched on at school kid level. We absolutely could dwell on how bloody awful it was and a breach of rights etc, but we don’t. It doesn’t happen now and we’re not in the situation anymore of relying on a navy to protect us from foreign tyrannical invasions, we especially for the kids skip to the fun stuff , of battles and the careers of great leaders. The gaping hole this ‘advocate’ is referring to is the absence of teaching of guilt and grievance, of current-year morés imposed on long dead people who all without exception had harder and worse lives than we all now currently enjoy.

  7. There’s a natural colour gradient in India, with darker-skinned Dravidians in the south and lighter-skinned ‘Moguls’ (Afghans etc etc) in the north. Lighter skins are more prestigious, possibly because it suggests you may be of Anglo-indian descent.

  8. The gaping hole this ‘advocate’ is referring to is the absence of teaching of guilt and grievance,…

    Exactly. I’m actually in favour of teaching history with warts ‘n all, but not whilst these cultural marxist slime want to use it to make our kids hate our country.

  9. The teaching of guilt and grievance is a job best left to religionists preaching hellfire and brimstone.

    And thus: man will never be free, until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.

  10. Mr Yan said:
    “Jesus, we must be at peak wealth to allow these people to not starve to death”

    There have always been people good at taking resources off the productive members of society; it’s just that their identity has changed.

  11. The more detailed stuff used to be kept back for A level which in my time warts and all.
    History up to 14 used to be just basic facts, battles and key events over a very wide time frame, choosing it for O level it went a little deeper as you were focused on more specific period, but still mainly factual, A level was more why things happened looking at causes and not just facts

  12. “Lighter skins are more prestigious, possibly because it suggests you may be of Anglo-indian descent.” One of the more implausible “possibly”s that I’ve seen lately: the colour business in India probably goes back to the Aryan invasion in the Bronze Age.

  13. Skin lighteners and hair straighteners are big business in my happy, extremely African country. If it gets you laid, good luck. If you think it will get you laid, (a) marks for trying and (b) positive attitude probably will get you laid.

    If we were all born with the same hair colour and same complexions there would still be tanning creams, sunbeds, skin lighteners and what not because vive la différence.

  14. @ Jonathan
    The Bengal famine was because the Japanese occupied Burma with the help (until they realised that the British that they knew were better than the Japanese that they hadn’t known) of the Burmese nationalists and Bengal ate rice grown in Burma because India excluding Burma grew less rice than it ate.
    It is one of the standard lefty lies that Churchil caused the famine by not sending Australian wheat (which they would not have eaten) to India. The greed of Bengali merchants was, at most, a second-order cause.

  15. Colourism, colonialism, slavery, pogroms, Hitler . . . there’s no difference.

    Not when you are trying to take over the world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *