You must log in or register to comment.

OldMork t1_jeaohz8 wrote

still today in some parts of asia pale skin = rich because dont have to work outside.


phumeonce t1_jeb8udh wrote

There's even a caste system is some parts.


dr-dog69 t1_jebu4mf wrote

There are caste systems in most of the world, even America and the EU


Daniel_The_Thinker t1_jec3mrx wrote

Do not compare America's classism with an actual caste system. They are different animals.


mh985 t1_jecytpf wrote

>They are different animals.



Beowulf_98 t1_jedrbkn wrote

Yet again, everything shit in the world has to be compared to America


katsu_kare_raisu t1_jebrn7f wrote

It's still largely true.

But what's odd is when light skinned Asians get racist on other poorer Asians for dark skin and forget that they also get as dark under the sun.


Daniel_The_Thinker t1_jec3q8j wrote

It's not racist, it's colorism


wallabee_kingpin_ t1_jecot0o wrote

That's true in Japan and Korea, but it's not true everywhere. In India and some other South(east) Asian countries, there's more than one ethnicity, and some of them different in their typical skin color. I don't know why people from the US think dark-skinned places only have a single ethnicity.


goldflame33 t1_jee2ci8 wrote

Skin colors being based on different ethnicities is immaterial to the post, unless you have examples of cases where the people of lighter skinned ethnicities do not look down upon the people with darker skin because of their color. I would bet that an Aryan Indian parent would prefer their child marry another lighter-skinned Indian than a darker skinned one, even if it's normal for that ethnicity to be darker


Daniel_The_Thinker t1_jecprgp wrote

... I know?

Different ethnic groups aren't really different "races" either though.


wallabee_kingpin_ t1_jecr6js wrote

If you want to be pedantic, there's no such thing as "race" in the first place. It isn't a scientific concept, can't be defined, and can't be tested.

Ethnicity is a real thing though, and in places like India, you have (for example) dark-skinned Dravidians in parts of the country and then light-skinned Aryan-descended people in the north.

These are people with historically different cultures who mostly stayed within their ethnicity, leading to them having stereotypically different skin colors -- what we could call "race" in the US.


Daniel_The_Thinker t1_jecuy7w wrote

I know, that's why I put race in quotations. There are plenty of ethnic groups in Europe that can be visually told apart, no one considers them different races.


WholeSilent8317 t1_jed31vp wrote

actually i seem to recall a certain someone talking about the aryan race


Daniel_The_Thinker t1_jed8e07 wrote

Which doesn't really exist as he imagined it at all.

Dude it's literally Hitler, no one got into that shit as much as him and his ilk. The average European did not give it the much thought.


Snizl t1_jedooqw wrote

You are making an argument that discriminating based on ethnicity instead of race isnt racism than proceed to say that races dont exist, while also ignoring the fact that literally all of europe has hated jews pretty much since they existed until the end of ww2, and anti semitism was very fashionable during that era anywhere in europe...

What exactly is your point even?


Daniel_The_Thinker t1_jeec6j9 wrote

Race is not a meaningful category in a scientific sense but it certainly exists in people's minds as its own category that comes with its own set of prejudices.

You can have an abused ethnic group within a majority race, case in point, Jews suffer from anti semitism but they would've been allowed to drink from white only water fountains because they were perceived as white.

It's really not that complicated, I don't understand your confusion to be honest.


Snizl t1_jeei7f4 wrote

Im not sure if there ever were "white only" water fountains in europe. Just because one ethnic group is discriminated against less than another one, doesnt mean one is considered a "race" and the other an "ethnicity". You are just coming up with random definitions on the spot to suit your narrative and i am quite confused about what that narrative is even supposed to be, especially since you use race and ethnicity interchangeably in other comments and suddenly make a distinction here.


Daniel_The_Thinker t1_jeey21o wrote

At no point did I ever use race and ethnicity interchangeably. And the water fountain is called an example. Another example, after the Spanish reconquest, Jews and Arabs were exiled from Spain. Jews were allowed to stay if they converted to Christianity, but Arabs were not allowed regardless of their religion.

Ive been clear enough, you're being willfully ignorant if you can't understand these simple concepts.


eugene20 t1_jec9dkn wrote

What's odd is when light skinned humans get racist on other humans for dark skin and forget that they would also get as dark under the sun after a few evolutionary cycles.


rlaxton t1_jedm59w wrote

Not so sure of that. Skin cancer is not likely to kill you before you can breed. The mutations that give me white skin and blue eyes are not going to just breed out. I would need to mutate a melanin gene back or breed it in.


PublicSeverance t1_jeebny0 wrote

> get as dark under the sun after a few evolutionary cycles

Roughly 100 generations is the quickest it can happen.

That's 2500 years.

For context, in 500BC the global population was 100 million, the iron age had not yet started, none of the Abrahamic religions would exist for another 4 centuries, Rome had just become a republic but was still just a random unimportant little city, Buddha was born and Pythagoras discovered how to talk about triangles.


Barbarossa7070 t1_jecuz97 wrote

Happens in the US among Blacks, especially in New Orleans. I was in a sociology class in college and a light-skinned Black classmate from New Orleans said that her mom would get mad if she went to the beach because she would ruin all their family’s hard work over the years to get light. All our jaws were on the floor.

And apocryphally, there used to be street parties in certain Creole neighborhoods in New Orleans where they’d tack a paper bag up to a tree and if your skin wasn’t at least as light as the bag, you couldn’t stay.


Pfeffer_Prinz OP t1_jedippk wrote

yeah people don't know about the Creole community in New Orleans — historically they were a separate class from Black and white, sort of in between the two on the social ladder. White people didn't treat them as equals, since they were definitely POC, but they were treated wayyy better than Black folks.

Their ancestry wasn't just African, it was also French & Spanish (and Indigenous). This gave them lighter skin & hair, but also access to generational wealth (and a sense of privilege). So they owned lots of property & businesses, held political offices, had functioning schools, hobknobbed with white society, and filled large neighborhoods. They were a solid middle/upper class for a long time.

So they saw themselves as distinct from the Black community, who were largely descended from enslaved Africans (so they were dark-skinned & poor). Creoles, like any people with privilege, generally shat on the class(es) below them. As James Baldwin said, that's "the price of the ticket" if you want to join the upper classes.

(ofc there are exceptions. Many Creoles treated people below them with respect & solidarity)

New Orleans Creoles still exist, of course, but not as a separate class like they used to be. They've been absorbed by both the larger Black and the larger white communities, but that wasn't so long ago — many people alive today were born into a distinct Creole class. Many of the prominent Creole families are still around today, and hold lots of sway.

(source: lived in New Orleans half my life)

EDIT: I'm not talking about the general Creole people, but the specific Creoles of color in New Orleans. Outside the city, the word "Creole" means something different


Comte_Hugues t1_jeepqut wrote

Which is similar to the Coloureds of South Africa who are still separated from Whites and Blacks to this day.


gdj11 t1_jecyi1m wrote

Buying body wash here in SE Asia is tough because almost every single one is skin whitening. It takes a while to read all the labels and finally find one that’s not whitening.


pekingsewer t1_jedlmf5 wrote

Wow thats. Now I know if I ever need to buy soap in parts of Asia to do some research about the brands lol.


DigNitty t1_jec8wn6 wrote

I was the only non-Korean on a tour bus once. We were taking it through the he countryside to a shrine. As soon as the big group got on, all the curtains were closed the bus was completely dark, and I could not see outside.


808ocd t1_jed7ok1 wrote

the beauty industry is flooded with "whitening" potions and shit


MissO56 t1_jedompa wrote

yup.... and it IS shit! people should enjoy and be proud of whatever hue their skin (or anyone else's) is! 👍👏❤️


afrogirl44 t1_jedq17p wrote

I’d be rolling in the money then because I can make nurses concerned with how noticeably pale I always am.


Hhic416 t1_jeg2jdi wrote

I used to work with a Korean guy as a landscaper and he always wore long sleeves, we asked why and he said “so my friends don’t think I’m poor”


PlowUnited t1_jeb2vzr wrote

Another fun fact - she was also a Nazi.


tenehemia t1_jebfyb4 wrote

That's not very fun.


maverickoff t1_jebko8g wrote

Unless you are a nazi lol


mh985 t1_jeczdzd wrote

In a thick German accent

"Ooo, Oberstleutnant Graf---Who are you wearing? You smell positively anti-semitic."


ZylonBane t1_jediamw wrote

Is a Nazi lol even worse than a regular lol?


gagrushenka t1_jecdy1s wrote

This is the fun bit about that: she tried to dupe the Jewish director out of Parfums Chanel by trying to claim sole ownership during WWII when Jews were basically not allowed to own anything. But the Wertheimers were savvy enough to have already transferred ownership to a Christian ally. After the war it was all transferred back to the Wertheimers. The family still owns the company.


artaig t1_jearwet wrote

Nowadays the poor work inside "9 to 5" (if lucky), and the rich are tanned from doing nothing on the beach.


food_chronicles t1_jeb1e5l wrote

Maybe in the developed world. In most of the developing/under developed world, some of the lowest paying jobs involve working outside (like manual laborers).


[deleted] t1_jebjnip wrote



William_Howard_Shaft t1_jebk0cw wrote



[deleted] t1_jebkhr1 wrote



inimicali t1_jebpld4 wrote

It's not called a tan when is the natural color of the skin, but "latins" can get a tan and is called a tan.

I think you are the one with some weird ideas.


0OO0OO00O t1_jegu9k3 wrote

Maybe in the US, not everywhere. A 9 to 5 in an office is a privileged job in third world countries


pethris t1_jebj4ff wrote

how many times do posts for this sub come from people listening to Robert Evans


Pfeffer_Prinz OP t1_jecyj3o wrote

I don't know who that is! I was actually reading an article about how in the 1800s, tuberculosis symptoms were attractive in high society (making you frighteningly skinny, with skin so pale it was translucent, and rosy cheeks from constant fever). Even after they got over the epidemic, the beauty standards stuck around... until Chanel's suntan


PerpetuallyLurking t1_jebji0v wrote

I’m literally in the middle of part 2 and thought “I haven’t hit that part yet!” lol


cranberrystew99 t1_jedfbne wrote

Same here! It's weird how the internet syncs up like this at times!

Feminist, nazi icon, Coco Chanel.


kaleidingscope t1_jed4sn0 wrote

I just listened to both episodes today at work, and I don’t remember this being mentioned.


TrumpterOFyvie t1_jeatbmm wrote

Yeah the reverence for lily white skin back in those days had nothing to do with white supremacy and everything to do with the status symbol of not having to work outside. You'll hear "lily white skin" referenced a lot in old English folk songs to describe the beauty of a woman, and while that's problematic to today's audiences for obvious reasons, it had no racist connotations back in the day.


SeiCalros t1_jebexyk wrote

>the reverence for lily white skin back in those days had nothing to do with white supremacy

i dont think white supremacists of the era would have agreed with that tbh


TrumpterOFyvie t1_jebg47v wrote

Which white supremacists of the era? We're talking about ordinary European people who had never even seen a black person let alone mixed with them. Pale white skin then was seen as an indicator of having been wealthy enough to stay indoors instead of working in the sun, and that's all there is to it. Race wasn't even an issue among common people in the UK until the immigration of West Indians, Africans, Indians and Pakistanis in the 20th century.


temporarysecretary17 t1_jebizjb wrote

You really think black people didn’t exist in Europe in the 1800s or before? You think a European in the 1920s wouldn’t have seen a black person?

You can’t actually be that dense.


TrumpterOFyvie t1_jeble7v wrote

Yes they existed. But not in great number and usually limited to large metropolises. English people outside of London had not mixed with black people, no. And we're not talking about the 1920's here. We're talking pre 1800's. Stop calling people dense when you have no idea what you're talking about.


temporarysecretary17 t1_jeblu49 wrote

Just because they hadn’t seen them doesn’t mean they didn’t know about it. Skin color was used as justification for colonialism (white mans burden).


TrumpterOFyvie t1_jebnh77 wrote

But this isn't the reason for the preference of lily white Caucasian skin over tanned Caucasian skin, which is what we're talking about here. You'll note that white supremacists don't give a shit whether or not a white person has a tan or not. Just that they're Caucasian.


SteveBored t1_jedaad0 wrote

White man's burden was an 1800s thing. He's right, many European people prior to the 1700s probably never saw a black person in their life. People rarely traveled beyond their local villages.


SeiCalros t1_jebltvi wrote

i think theres a limit to the practical utility of reasoning with a person who refuses to recognize that the literal concept of 'white=better' is intrinsically associated with white supremacy

but i guess theres merit in the entertainment value of it


Daniel_The_Thinker t1_jec3wdt wrote

It's not intrinsically associated at all, colorism has always existed even inside ethnically homogenous societies.


SeiCalros t1_jec9u8d wrote

i dont know if i can dumb this down for you any more but - if you have two things? and one is a subset of the other? THAT IS AN INTRINSIC ASSOCIATION

if there was no 'colorism' there would be no white supremacy - colorism is THE intrinsic and inextractible quality of white supremacy that distinguishes it from other ethnic discrimination


Daniel_The_Thinker t1_jecan9v wrote

But that isn't what white supremacy is, you idiot.

White supremacy is a racial belief system, it has nothing to do with variation in pigment WITHIN an ethnic group and honestly not inextricably linked with pigment at all, considering the anglo Saxon white supremacists targeted the Irish (whiter than them) as an inferior race.

If one brother becomes a merchant and works inside all day while another becomes a poor farmer, they're not looking down on the farmer because of his color, they are looking down on him because he is a farmer, and the color just outs him as one. They're the same "white race"


SeiCalros t1_jecsoqg wrote

>But that isn't what white supremacy is, you idiot.

ah yes forgive me for being such an idiot to have developed the misconception that white supremacy was somehow related to skin colour 🤡

>considering the anglo Saxon white supremacists targeted the Irish

really? tell me professor history 🤡 how long did that last 🤡🤡

seems in retrospect there may have been some quality the irish had that inhibited the persistency of that categorism

too bad its nothing obvious 🤡


SeiCalros t1_jebhfs0 wrote

>We're talking about ordinary European people who had never even seen a black person let alone mixed with them

nah - what you said was

>Yeah the reverence for lily white skin back in those days had nothing to do with white supremacy

but the two concepts are intrinsically linked - reverence for lily white skin back in those days was intrinsically associated with white supremacy in every place where white supremacy existed

not to mention the fact that the reverence for lily white skin furthered white supremacy in places where it didnt have a strong foothold

now if you had said that the concepts existed separately from each other that would have been closer to true - but still debateable

>Race wasn't even an issue among common people in the UK until the immigration of West Indians, Africans, Indians and Pakistanis in the 20th century.

youre right there - its not like anybody in europe ever heard of the dark skinned moors that invaded christendom in the 7th century despite being mentioned in half the novels of the era


TrumpterOFyvie t1_jebjnqm wrote

>but the two concepts are intrinsically linked - reverence for lily white skin back in those days was intrinsically associated with white supremacy in every place where white supremacy existed

No it wasn't, it was intrinsically linked to pale skin being seen as a status symbol given that rich and privileged people had the palest skin through non exposure to the sun, as I've explained before. White supremacy was not a concept in the minds of ordinary people at that time, as much as you wish it were.

>not to mention the fact that the reverence for lily white skin furthered white supremacy in places where it didnt have a strong foothold

It might well have done, yes. But white supremacy wouldn't gain any kind of foothold among ordinary white people until they started mixing with non white people and developing ignorant (and sometimes superstitious) ideas about them.

>now if you had said that the concepts existed separately from each other that would have been closer to true - but still debateabl

Well they did, because the admiration of pale skin back then was a way for ordinary white people to discriminate against each other, not other races.

>youre right there - its not like anybody in europe ever heard of the dark skinned moors that invaded christendom in the 7th century despite being mentioned in half the novels of the era

This doesn't mean that ordinary people in the UK had mixed with black people to form ideas of racial superiority, no. Again, it was all about class.


SeiCalros t1_jebkf7y wrote

>White supremacy was not a concept in the minds of ordinary people at that time, as much as you wish it were.

in the 1920s? half a century after the american civil war? ten years before the aryan supremacist nazis took power in germany? the decade AFTER 'racist' was included in the oxford english dictionary?

i gotta say bruv despite your confidence i am getting the impression that your understanding of history is quite unburdened by the facts of history


ThrownAwayFrom1986 t1_jeb8zq7 wrote

You're so wrong, lol. Things can be both classist AND racist.

"Light skin = desirable" might have been "not racist" for folks with naturally light skin, but what about people of color back then? Do you really believe that the elite white folks of the time would've described dark/brown/black skin as beautiful or desirable?

The racism is baked into the statement. It sets light skin as desirable, natural, wealthy, classy. It sets "light skin" as the norm or the default. You honestly don't see any racism in that?

White supremacy is insidious as fuck.


KGhaleon t1_jebe2dv wrote

Yes, comparing modern day ethics to older eras where racism wasn't even a conscious factor is stupid.


taxiSC t1_jebihea wrote

Wrote this in response to another comment, but it fits here too:

Othello was written in 1603 and is definitely about race. Sure, it's also about class and religion and a lot of other things, but race is definitely a major part of the play. How would Shakespeare have been able to write about race if it wasn't a component in English society at the time?


temporarysecretary17 t1_jebj4pi wrote

You think because the civil rights movement hadn’t happened yet racism didn’t exist?


KGhaleon t1_jebknez wrote

Yes, the concept of racism is a belief, an idea.


KommanderKeen-a42 t1_jebcjnr wrote

There can be an overlap without "not wanting to get burned" as a status symbol - yes.

But it's also true that there was very likely a preference for white people. Both can be true - preferring non-burned skin can 100% not be racist. In other words, am I a racist for not liking people that intentionally get super dark tans and look fried? Or, do I happen to prefer healthy-looking skin (and healthy habits)? Now, understand that society was 90% white and it follows that 90% of preferences and word choices are white-leaning. That also doesn't make someone racist.

Let's change words a bit. Songs in India reference Hinduism and not Christianity. Do you then conclude that Indians hate all Christians and their songs/poems are rooted in bigotry? Or do you concede that lack of access and awareness does not equal hate?

I understand and applaud your efforts for a better world, but your claims and approach do more damage than good - especially as it pertains to DEI and CRT. This last part is especially true since England under Elizabeth was probably one of the more liberal thinking cultures at the time and it's well documented that it was not uncommon at all for interracial marriages. Doesn't mean it was great, but you are showing your (American?) bias in thinking 1800s England was the same as 1800s America.


TrumpterOFyvie t1_jebd73n wrote

Oh stop it. You're talking about a time when the vast majority of people in the UK hadn't even seen a black person. There was no racial element whatsover, it was 100% class.


taxiSC t1_jebib7u wrote

Othello was written in 1603 and is definitely about race. Sure, it's also about class and religion and a lot of other things, but race is definitely a major part of the play. How would Shakespeare have been able to write about race if it wasn't a component in English society at the time?


TrumpterOFyvie t1_jebk4xa wrote

Back in those days, very few people outside of London had seen a black person. Shakespeare was not of the ordinary British working classes. He was writing about a concept that was not a part of the vast majority of British people's lives. It was an "exotic" subject which didn't reflect the lives of ordinary Brits in any way.


taxiSC t1_jebp1df wrote

His plays were immensely popular with "ordinary Brits" though, so I do think there was something they could connect with. Even if they didn't interact with black people, they'd interact with people other "races" fairly often -- be they Irish, Greek, Arab, or whatever. And they were certainly willing to be highly prejudiced against those groups -- some of whom are known to be "swarthier" than the inhabitants of the UK.

It's a vastly different interaction with race than the modern day one, of course. Othello is as much about Othello being from a population that tends to be Muslim as it is about his having dark skin or African features. That's not as present a concern with modern day racism (although it does still crop up a bit).

I don't think your point is entirely unfair, but I do think it's overstated and a bit too focused on racism being against Africans specifically -- people of color is a broader term and was the one OP was using. Also, the current trend is to view racism as something that doesn't need to be intentional -- evaluated on it's impact instead of it's intent, I think it's easy to say the phrase "lily white skin" being an ideal of beauty is a definition that inherently leaves some races out. Unfortunately, the current trend also seems to be to view these instances of unintentional racism as as evil as targeted and malicious racism. Which is, frankly, crazy. We should be able to recognize something as harmful and learn to avoid it in the future without needing to assign malice to actions that had none.


goodguydick t1_jebe4gj wrote

You can be racist to a group without being exposed to them


TrumpterOFyvie t1_jebfinn wrote

Keep grasping at straws. The preference for pale white skin back in those days as an indicator of class had nothing whatsoever to do with race.


No_Solution_2864 t1_jeca0mj wrote

Between the Nazi stuff and the skin cancer, she’s really one of the great unsung monsters of the 20th century.


enfiel t1_jeb92vw wrote

Oh yeah? Then why have I heard so many WWI stories where doctors recommended injured people to get more sunlight?


SeanG909 t1_jebitm3 wrote

Well there's also some sense to it. Vitamin D deficiency is a persistent issue in the UK and Ireland, and isn't conducive to an ideal healthy status.


ImJustStandingHere t1_jec6k54 wrote

Because of Niels Ryberg Finsen, who began studying the effect of sunlight on health around the 1890's.

Coco Chanel might have helped popularize it, but it was already underway


enfiel t1_jee1bls wrote

Or what's more likely is Coco lied to make herself look better like all those fashion poseurs do.


whitebean t1_jebgc9b wrote

Duh, because it was still for poor people at the time.


KGhaleon t1_jebdrtd wrote

That hasn't changed, there are parts of Asian where pale skin is idolized.


dromni t1_jeboehn wrote

Even in many countries were almost everyone is black or brown lighter skin tends to be preferred.

I once saw some theory that because women in average tend to have lighter skin than men of the same race that was associated with femininity by many civilizations. Richer men would then marry women with lighter skin. Give it a few generations, and there would always be an elite / aristocracy with lighter skin than the plebeians, regardless of the main race of the population.


RaisinEducational312 t1_jedg9lj wrote

Interesting, always wondered why guys with the same parents oftentimes are darker than their sisters


goldflame33 t1_jee2ish wrote

West Africa, too. Every other billboard is a skin bleaching product


Mr_Mojo_Risin_83 t1_jechynj wrote

There’s nothing healthy about a tan. The sun is no joke. It will fucking kill you. Everyone carries on about the spiders and snakes in Australia but the sun is the number 1 killer here.


tsaimaitreya t1_jedrtkd wrote

That's because you don't have an ozone layer, and most of your population are the wrong phenotype for that climate anyway

A moderate sun exposition is absolutely necessary


PublicSeverance t1_jeecyrt wrote

Doesn't make top 10.

  1. Ischaemic heart diseases

  2. Dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease

  3. Cerebrovascular diseases (e.g. stroke)

  4. Lung cancer

  5. Chronic lower respiratory diseases

Much like the rest of the world, it's lifestyle diseases and being overweight.

Skin cancer kills about 2000 Australians a year. It's not even in the top 5 cancers for deaths! For context, about 5500 die a year from colon cancer. Or pulling numbers from their arse, much like your statistic.


Mr_Mojo_Risin_83 t1_jeei03u wrote

you must be fun at parties. all your friends love having you around


RaisinEducational312 t1_jedgg2g wrote

I really don’t believe this. I come for a country with 300+ days of scorching heat. Everyone is fit and healthy and has great skin. Unlike where I live now in the UK - depression, fatigue and accelerated aging are so common.


akl78 t1_jee4uvf wrote

It’s not simply sunlight; Australasia has a combination relatively high UV light levels, clear skies, and a high proportion of people with pale skin compared to other sunny parts of the world (more here). Especially in summer and unlike the UK a pale person like me can easily burn in the sun in as little as ten or fifteen minutes- you can actually feel it start to happen as soon as you step outside.


PizzAveMaria t1_jebqza9 wrote

A few years ago I developed a rash called Pityriasis Rosea and the dermatologist told me there's really no treatment except to go outside and lay in the sun to help it go away faster...never thought I'd hear a dermatologist tell me to basically get a tan!


buster9312 t1_jeb2pje wrote

Did she accidentally bang nazis too?


iz2 t1_jeb7o06 wrote

No, she purposefully banged them. She was a nazi sympathizer at best, collaborator at worst.


RedTheDopeKing t1_jeb63bj wrote

It’s funny how everyone flip flopped, in many places it’s desirable to have lighter skin yet white people are walking around looking like Oompa Loompas.


bolanrox t1_jecl659 wrote

The nazi spy / sympathizer?


Sekmet19 t1_jecvsfn wrote

Didn't she suck Nazi dick when they occupied Paris.


Little-Variation8268 t1_jedtx0k wrote

Back in the day, the rich ate and the poor went hungry, so skinny people were looked down on and fatter people were treated as royalty. My how fads and trends change


Sarmelion t1_jebdjqp wrote

Horrible Fact: Coco Chanel was also a Nazi collaborator


crazyhappy2169 t1_jeckqy8 wrote

Now 100 million people owe you a debt of gratitude for the skin cancer theycurrently have, thanks a bunch


Kelimnac t1_jecq1j1 wrote

Wikipedia picked the perfect example for drawing a user’s attention to tanlines


Dame_Marjorie t1_jedwveu wrote

She also had Nazis as lovers during WWII.


Dr-Retz t1_jebi7ey wrote

Vitamin D provided by exposure to sunlight is one of the best things.


dvdmaven t1_jebijjz wrote

When I was stationed in the West Indies one of the female officers tried desperately to get a tan, because she was going home for xmas. Six hours a day three days a week, nothing. No tan, no burn, nothing.


WendolaSadie t1_jeckdht wrote

This is a simplification. Pretty silly. She was part of a trend among Western societies, but she alone didn’t cause the shift.


valkyria1111 t1_jed6yg2 wrote

No-one should ever feel the 'need' to either lighten OR darken their skin. It's ridiculous


SheketBevakaSTFU t1_jedz792 wrote

You’re telling me a Nazi is responsible for skin cancer????


climbhigher420 t1_jee5g7i wrote

You’d be surprised that white people, just like black people, judge other white people if their skin is too white. I’m not sure about Asians and other colors but I can tell you racism exists even among people of the same color. You’re too white, too dark, etc.


Solidsnakeerection t1_jef4nog wrote

Coco Chanel's estate suedy Little Pony over a character named Coco Pommel saying it hurt the brand. Coco Chanel collaborated with Mazis


Beowulf_98 t1_jedrh4a wrote

In Bollywood movies, they put lighter skinned actors in front and darker skins one in the back, it's pretty disgusting once you notice it.

Source: Wife is South Asian


DoesntFearZeus t1_jecns5k wrote

/r/tanlines if you want to do some research on this phenomenon NSFW