Some sort of sick joke?

*Buckaroo* wrote:
BBC follows internationalist NWO agenda couched in fabian socialism. It isn't very visible to ordinary mortals at first glance.

Katrina provided opportunity to attack the State of US since it's utility to the international clique was over.

Not now darling, I have a headache.

doremi wrote:

doctorspin wrote:

doremi wrote:doc, Shahrukh is unbelieveably popular in India. You'd have to see it to believe it.

That would seem to be a sign of good taste in the nation then

Any reason why?

But it seems whether a celeb is unpopular or not, these people running transmissions seem to feel they have to spend precious airtime on them. Maybe they are being paid.

He's quite intelligent, though that's not the reason for his popularity. He's been cast in some seriously big films. Even the players, from both teams, would probably have felt good when they saw him there.

Kinda like the Scotland players felt when Mel Gibson turned up to watch their WC game in January?

doremi wrote:

doctorspin wrote:

doremi wrote:doc, Shahrukh is unbelieveably popular in India. You'd have to see it to believe it.

That would seem to be a sign of good taste in the nation then

Any reason why?

But it seems whether a celeb is unpopular or not, these people running transmissions seem to feel they have to spend precious airtime on them. Maybe they are being paid.

He's quite intelligent, though that's not the reason for his popularity. He's been cast in some seriously big films. Even the players, from both teams, would probably have felt good when they saw him there.

Ah well, if the players would have been happy I'll let this one go.

He did look as if he was well up his own *** though. But who am I to judge? He may be really nice and help old ladies across the road and all that.

Getting back to the whole pale-skin being popular thing. It's based on the same thing having a pale skin did in Europe before the 20th centuary. Having a pale skin meant you don't work outside in the sun, ie you're not working class, it's all about class and social position and it's carried on from there. Sad but true.

Best explanation yet.

eowyn wrote:Getting back to the whole pale-skin being popular thing. It's based on the same thing having a pale skin did in Europe before the 20th centuary. Having a pale skin meant you don't work outside in the sun, ie you're not working class, it's all about class and social position and it's carried on from there. Sad but true.

Exactly . . . the same in China/Japan etc . . . pale skin (especially for women) meant that you were of a class that exempted you from manual work . . .

What an ace thread.

doctorspin wrote:The guy in the ad is the same guy who was watching the T20 final from the VIP balcony yesterday. The cameras kept focussing on him as if it meant anything him being here?

Apologies if that has been noted before.

It really farkes me off when the cameras/producers keep giving us shots of "celebs" at cricket (they are just as bad in the UK...Parkinson, Major, football managers).....as if the cult of celeb is not bad enough, we get it rammed down our throats when watching a Test match or whatever.

Oh yeh, and to get back on topic, it's the same in the West Indies (well the bits I've stayed and worked in anyway); if you are really dark, the worst is "blue-black" then forget about having a life. "fair" is the way to be.

AFAIK it has been like that on the sub-continent for eons.

What I don't know, is whether it is fair and correct to attribute the attitude to the Empire and all that. I have a feeling that those kind of "fair is better than dark" attitudes may have been present in some continents before Empire and slavery. But I may be completely wrong on that.

I'm sure it's got nothing (or very little) to do with the British too. And I don't see anything wrong in it. If getting a tan for the sake of improving one's looks is okay, getting 'fair' is fine too.

But that it lends some sort of unfair (ha!) social advantage (apart from in certain careers for which 'beauty' is a prerequisite) is only a sad consequence and could have something to do with the British rule.

LLL says 'beauty myth and all that'. I say it's highly subjective (maybe even objective - Richard Dawkins presents a plausible evolutionary reason for why fair is beautiful), and I personally prefer lighter skin over some of the darker shades. Not very PC, I know, but it's fact.

JKLever wrote:

Lara Lara Laughs wrote:But caucasians who don't use tanning products aren't classed as ugly in mainstream adverts, supported by entertainment stars.

Aye, maybe the advert is OTT.

There's a general feeling that a tan on a caucasian gives you a 'glow' as opposed to pasty skin in our culture. So it's pretty similar to wanting lighter skin i'd suppose.

IMO the "dark-skinned" guy in the ad is the better-looking of the two.

lardbucket wrote:Buckaroo reads like Michael Shrimpton choking on chips.

and now even more so on what is becoming the 'universe' thread ...

lardbucket wrote:Buckaroo reads like Michael Shrimpton choking on chips.

Sage.

If I wanted to read a story, I'd read one. Jackanory this place isn't.

Its funny in China how people (especially the women) are obsessed with having pale skin, but now the middle classes are also trying to copy Western lifestyles. So thousands and thousands flock to the beaches every summer like Westerners.

So now every Chinese beach is packed with people, but they're all desperate to avoid any sun, hiding under their umbrellas and covering themselves with this skin whitening sunblock. They might as well stay at home.

Though maybe then they can't show off their matching family hawaiian shirt / short combos.

Gary 111 wrote:Its funny in China how people (especially the women) are obsessed with having pale skin, but now the middle classes are also trying to copy Western lifestyles. So thousands and thousands flock to the beaches every summer like Westerners.

So now every Chinese beach is packed with people, but they're all desperate to avoid any sun, hiding under their umbrellas and covering themselves with this skin whitening sunblock. They might as well stay at home.

Though maybe then they can't show off their matching family hawaiian shirt / short combos.

PMSL.

[quote="HH_pink"]

doctorspin wrote:

Richard Dawkins presents a plausible evolutionary reason for why fair is beautiful

Which is? (Didn't check up myself because I find Dawkins, like Gould, rather indigestible.)

[quote="mynah"]

HH_pink wrote:

doctorspin wrote:

Richard Dawkins presents a plausible evolutionary reason for why fair is beautiful

Which is? (Didn't check up myself because I find Dawkins, like Gould, rather indigestible.)

Well, I should've said 'attractive' or 'appealing' and not 'beautiful'. His theory is that a lighter skin gives away obvious external blotches in appearance to the casual or non-casual observer, and thus helps greatly in mate selection. A healthy white exterior is a sure sign of a disease-free body (according to dumb early humans), while you can never be sure if a black exterior is healthy or not (except, of course, for things like leucoderma, which presumably is a far unlikelier ailment than some of the other externally manifesting diseases). Makes sense, kinda, I thought.

eowyn wrote:Getting back to the whole pale-skin being popular thing.
It's based on the same thing having a pale skin did in Europe before the 20th centuary. Having a pale skin meant you don't work outside in the sun, ie you're not working class, it's all about class and social position and it's carried on from there. Sad but true.

The reasoning is similar in other parts of the world. But the origins are obscure. Apparently the ancients believed that there were a group of Gods/Angels in human form and then there was their camp-followers who were aborigin. These Gods resemble the Archangels in bible who took human consorts and intermarried with 'daughters of man'.

Now in Hinduism the Nobility/Arya was supposed to have descended from 7 saints and descendents of the other archangel-types who intermarried with man. This created a hybrid progeny who were known as Arya or nobility.

The Arya's then indulged in never-ending wars with each other, one of
which is the story of Rama/Ramayana and another is Mahabharata/Krishna.
During these wars they gained a lot of aboriginal camp-followers from around the world. Now the Arya had a certain unique traits according to ancient religious records, their varna/color that ranged from 'blue' to 'fair' complexions and they had certain distinguishing physical traits that were incidentaly also deemed desirable by the society then. And the aboriginal camp-followers resembled like the various Australoid groups and the proto-Mongoloid groups or the native aborigines found in Australia or such aboriginal groups found elsewhere. Later the progeny of the Arya is supposed to have intermarried with the progeny of the camp followers and created another group of hybrids which gave rise to the caste-system. The caste-system was devised in order to preserve the genepool and threads arising out of various lineages and to prevent opposing progeny from associatng with each other. The more hybridized occupied higher echelons of the system and the lower hybridized-more aboriginal ones came lower down the scale. So the ones lower down the chain wanted to acquire physical features of the Arya/nobility and gain social mobility upwards. So it was in the interests of those lower the chain to resemble and embrace ones higher up the hybrid chain.

This is diagonally opposite to Darwin's theory of evolution, because this clearly indicates that certain others were involved in the development of the human species.

the caste system ranks with apartheid as an abhorrent crime against humanity...ealrier this year in a mass ceremony 75000 lowest caste hindus converted to buddhism mainly to stop their kids being discriminated against

Prolonged periods of external invasions and Islamic rule in India which lasted for 500 years and later British misrule in India has turned the caste-system very rigid and turned the society inwards. This is a sign of social insecurity.

Massive repair work is required to undo damage of last 600 years, Independence is only 60 years old.

that is an explanation not a justification...the current system is bizarre and grossly unfair

The rigididty of caste system was developed to handle external
shock from violent invaders when the population turned insular and less outgoing. The first historical emperors were not
from the four varnas. Now the leader of the largeset states is from outside the four castes. She is a continuation of that phenomenon.

Caste-System has come under tremendous psy-ops in the west. It has been grossly misrepresented to western public. They are targeting this for the same purpose they are influencing young girls in the west to perform lewd acts and break social traditions to "adjust with peers".

The lower-castes in India are being targeted by Christian groups in west esp American like Jehovah's Witnesses for massive conversions. They call this "soul-harvesting", and within one generation a new group of people will emerge with no traditional anchor, rudderless and ripe for the picking. They will then be indoctrinated with NWO propaganda and will become future foot-soldiers of NWO. This is not revealed to them, they do not know their fate.This is same as that is happening in the west with the younger generation who are forced into various acts in order to confirm with society. It is the media which sets standards on what is 'current' and in vogue. Everyone is expected to confirm to media established social standards.

Ownership of western media needs to come under scrutiny. These are spokespersons for Neocon and International banker cabal and is interested only in manipulating society.

I read an interesting piece recently about the ancient Greeks, and research that was done to determine what had happened to them (and other peoples). Won't bore you with all the genetics stuff, except to say that it was all scientifically sound.

There is a persistent belief, at least in parts of the West, that the sophisticated ancient Greeks were blond, blue-eyed people who were replaced by olive-skinned, dark-haired barbarians at some point in history. The fate of the ancient Greeks is touted as a mystery.

The research showed that there was no mystery at all, except that the above theory came to have such a following: The ancient Greeks probably looked much like the modern Greeks, with mostly dark hair and the occasional blond popping up. It was added that science had never taken the “blond Greek” theory, which is apparently of quite recent origin, seriously.

The Irish legends show that a group of people lived in Ireland by name of "Tuatha de Dannan". They were supposed to be the progeny of Godess Danu.

She is also known as Goddess Dhanu in hindu mythology. She was the progenitor of the Danavas/Demon-like humans. After a war she fled the region and settled in what is now Ireland. Now Godess Dhanu in Hindu mythology is the first Red-haired goddess and her progeny are known to sport red/ginger hair and you can find such people in Ireland/Basque/Wales.

This goes against Darwin's theory of evolution as well, when a single female progenitor is responsible for red-haired gene.

It's all Greek to me.

mynah wrote:I read an interesting piece recently about the ancient Greeks, and research that was done to determine what had happened to them (and other peoples). Won't bore you with all the genetics stuff, except to say that it was all scientifically sound.

There is a persistent belief, at least in parts of the West, that the sophisticated ancient Greeks were blond, blue-eyed people who were replaced by olive-skinned, dark-haired barbarians at some point in history. The fate of the ancient Greeks is touted as a mystery.

The research showed that there was no mystery at all, except that the above theory came to have such a following: The ancient Greeks probably looked much like the modern Greeks, with mostly dark hair and the occasional blond popping up. It was added that science had never taken the “blond Greek” theory, which is apparently of quite recent origin, seriously.

the original greeks are supposed to have retreated to Macedonia and some of them called Circassians were absorbed by the Turks.This left only a minor population of blonds in ancestors of present Greek population.

Dello wrote:It's all Greek to me.

But does it leave you in the dark, or at least enlightened to some degree?