Talk:Colorism/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Colourism

Bbnmb 2402:3A80:1CBB:B572:7766:D93B:1DED:643E (talk) 08:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Women's, Gender and Sexuality Studies-17

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 16 February 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Elsafishman (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Devon Jin (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Absurd paragraph

There is an utterly absurd paragraph under the 'Worldwide' heading which seems like vandalism. I removed it, but my edit was inexplicably undone. Can anyone please explain why?

The paragraph opens with the claim that racism "affects almost every aspect of people's daily lives". This ridiculous claim is saying that in most counties around the world, the MAJORITY race is at a great disadvantage to its minorities. In monoethnic countries like Japan where maybe 0.1% of the population is white, the article claims that those 0.1% of white people are at a huge advantage over the 98% majority of Japanese race.

The only reference given to back up this claim is a WESTERN paper written in the UK which, by its own description is explicitly NOT about worldwide race, but about its own society (the UK is 75% white).

The paragraph goes on to claim that 'people of color' are at a worldwide disadvantage, yet the sole reference given has nothing at all to do with worldwide perceptions of 'people of color'. The article is about, quote "ETHNIC MINORITIES". Read the paper and it states this clearly. People of color are NOT ethnic minorities in most of the world, only in countries such as the UK, which this paper is about.

This paragraph is therefore both illogical, and promoting original research which is not based on any actual data, studies or published papers. It is nonsense. Explain to me why it is allowed in this article? Or is this an encyclopedia for people who reject logic and facts, and instead prefer to promote some kind of shared ideological fantasy? Grand Dizzy (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The above comment seems to be correct in substance, if unnecessarily hyperbolic. The source cited cannot legitimately be cited for statements about racism 'worldwide'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: African American Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 22 August 2023 and 4 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gymshark4321, Strawberries30 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Tjuadiv2023, Studenteditor03, Dreamer Jr., Dvc02.

— Assignment last updated by Studenteditor03 (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Skin-tone preference in Asia has nothing to do with colorism

Colorism assigns privileges based on skin tone: "Your skin is white! You should get the job!" In Asia, this is definitely not the case. What we have is skin-tone preference. People prefer non-tanned skin, as tanning has historically been associated with manual labor. If your skin is inborn darker, as with Indians, we completely ignore it. For example, you would expect Indians in Malaysia to occupy the lowest structure of society if Malaysians practice "colorism" since their skin color is darker than Malays and Chinese. However, Indians are amongst the highest earners. They earn far more than Malays and boast many billionaires (Ananda Krishnan, Syed Mokhtar Albukhary, etc. see List of Malaysians of Indian descent). Singapore would also never have figures like Vivian Balakrishnan, S.R. Nathan, and Kishore Mahbubani if we judge competence based on skin color. SMH2023s (talk) 05:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your observations and I think the article steers way too far off topic with the obsessive focus on skin creams, especially from an Indian or African American POV. I would also like to add that many people in East Asia embrace tanned skin (as is mentioned in the China section). It's not as lopsided as some foreigners seem to think it is and I'm glad the article talks about the tan obsession in the West. 2600:100C:B00A:4F4C:F5B3:FAA9:6D08:FC47 (talk) 04:59, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Could not agree with this. Just because people with darker skin are not outright separated from society does not mean that they are not systematically looked down upon for many things that consider their face and body (ex: marriage, modelling, jobs that involve making an impression on potential local and intl. clients). I am speaking as a lightish-skin person from Bangladesh. Aspweb (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Signals, Data, and Equity

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation–supported course assignment, between 26 August 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): A.e.einsmann (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Nishathottam.

— Assignment last updated by Nishathottam (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Re: lede

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Discrimination_based_on_skin_tone&diff=prev&oldid=1273696791

in this edit a block of text was removed, but I think the lede should give examples since it mentions the phenomenon of reverse colourism. This paragraph included almost all of the examples already in the article. i don't think MrOllie intended to delete the mentioning of reverse colourism entirely, as the previous IP editor and known troll has been known to do. 2600:100C:B02A:9C31:B820:EA23:7D45:E220 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Per MOS:LEAD the lead summarizes the article. It isn't a place to add new material or make lists of examples. MrOllie (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Request Removal

Requesting removal of this page, as these are not factual concepts, they are theories and do not belong in an encyclopedia of factual knowledge. Sociology In Action (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Topics don't have to be 'factual concepts' to be notable. Wikipedia uses sources to determine notability. The article has 269 sources. You're going to have to do better than this if you think the topic is not notable enough for an article. Grayfell (talk) 06:21, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

History of Law

Perpetuating the social constructs of race and skin color means putting an emphasis on “morphological differences like the broadness of the nose, the curl of the hair and the fullness of the lips” as important characteristics in determining a person’s race. The lighter a person’s skin the likelier they are to be considered white. These skin tone variations are strongly linked with the “psychological and economic privileges attributed to whiteness” . Blackness is associated with being on the lower end of the socioeconomic hierarchy . In the US Colonial period, Miscegenation laws described the interbreeding of what were presumed to be distinct human races. Miscegenation gave white planters an economic advantage by increasing their slave holdings because the status of children followed that of their mother. Miscegenation between black slaves and poor white indentured servants caused colonists of the 1660s to decide whether children were black and slaves or white and free. The answer can be found in colonial legislature who used skin tone as a main indicator for mulattoes . In the Upper South (the area reaching south from Pennsylvania into parts of North Carolina) the initial interracial unions primarily involved White male indentured servants and Black slave women." As a result, colonial legislators in this region took the harshest stance against miscegenation and mixed-race individuals. To deter miscegenation, these legislators proclaimed that the children of Black slave women would be slaves notwithstanding the race of their fathers In 1691, the Virginia Assembly declared any “English woman who gave birth to "a bastard child by any Negro or mulatto" would be heavily fined or subject to five years of servitude and that the child would be bound into servitude until it reach”. 1705 Virginia Statute prohibited Blacks, Indians and mulattoes from holding office and from serving as witness in legal proceedings. In 1773, Virginia prohibited “free mulattoes from voting and could only possess firearms under highly restrictive circumstances” In 1785, Virginia defined a Negro as a person with a Black parent or grandparent. Over time, this definition was broadened to include persons with less than one-fourth black blood

As one scholar notes, "no matter how White looking or White acting someone of mixed ancestry [was] or how little Black- ness [was] in a person's genetic makeup, that person [was] considered Black." In effect, the one-drop rule maintained the status quo of White privilege by casting mulattoes in the same role of social outcast as unmixed blacks. 
 Ariela J. Gross, Litigating Whiteness: Trials of Racial Determination in the Nineteenth-Century South, 108 YALE L.J. 109, 137-41 (1998)
 N F. HANEY LOPEZ, WHITE BY LAW: THE LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF RACE 197-202 (1996) 

 Leonard M. Baynes, Who is Black Enough for You? An Analysis of Northwestern University Law School's Struggle over Minority Faculty Hiring, 2 MICH. J. RACE & L. 205, 226 (1997)

 John H. Russell, The Free Negro in Virginia, 31 JOHNS HOPKINS UNIV. STUDY. 1913

 Kenneth E. Payson, Check One Box: Reconsidering Directive No. 15 and the Classification of Mixed-Race People, 84 CAL. L. REV. 1233, 1247-48 (1996).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Authenticly25 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)