Month: May 2016

Is being black ugly?

What is it about black features that supposedly makes it so unattractive to some. Is it the lush lips, High melanin skin complexion, or just the coarse and strong hair. In my personal opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the physical features of the African, which I shall demonstrate

First and foremost we need to understand why do different groups humans look so varyingly different from each other. Before I get into this, I also want it to be known that humans share about 99.99% of our genetic code with each other regardless of “race”. Humanity as a species(anatomically modern) first originated 200,000 years ago somewhere in east Africa. Then around 50 thousand years ago bands of humans left Africa for Europe and Asia(Human reaching the Americas 15,00 years ago). That being said the first humans had to survive in very hot and arid condition of Africa. The sun provides humans with vitamin D, through ultraviolet radiation. Too much UVR and a person can develop skin cancer, a good protection from this is to have a lot of melanin, which translates into darker skin, to protect Humans from skin damage. To project the tops of our heads, coarse and tightly bound hair was needed. To better expatriate sweat, broad facial features with larger surfaces tend to do a better a job.

So why are African features so unattractive if it was so evolutionary advantages. First it has to do with the legacy of slavery. When one group of physically different humans, subject another group of humans, those attributes that belong to the subjected are deemed inferior, just as their status in that respected society.

Black people in the United States as well as across Latin America. Embody a sense of inferiority in their appearance. This is why black women in America spend billions of dollars every year on hair straightening product as well as hair extensions(colloquially called weaves). The fact that women who are lighter in skin complexion and possess European physical features are considered more attractive by many black men. And why many black people will ridicule each other for possessing features that deemed to African, such darker skin(being called crispy, darker),thicker lips(bottom lip jocks), or coarser hair(nappy hair, bad hair as opposed to good hair which would be European).

There is a societal delusion in the inferiority appearance of Africans. One common derogatory remark is the comparison of black people to monkeys. I will show how this dis-remark can be reversed on Europeans

First and foremost Monkeys are quit hairy, African tend to have very little in body hair as compared to Europeans. Secondly monkeys tend to coated in hair that is similar to Europeans texture then to Africans. Thirdly monkeys are quite pale if you were to shave them. Fourthly monkeys have extremely thin lips and noses similar to Europeans than to Africans. This is not to compare Europeans to primates but just to demonstrate how nonsensical it is to call Africans monkeys.

There is no reason why black people or any other racial group should be demonized by their appearance. At the end of the day, we are all humans and beauty can be found in every skin hue, hair grad, eye shape, and body size!

by Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

Why Asians are not underrepresented in Media

There has been a lot of anger spewed around on the grounds of Scarlett Johnson playing Major Motoko Kusanagi(A fictional Japanese Character) in the new Ghost in the Shell film, due for release sometime next year. My interest here is not to defend the producers choice in casting, but to examine it in a different mindset.

First, let’s address the issue regarding Asians being under-represented in the media. As of the 2010 U.S census, Asians represent  4.8% of the U.S populace. The term ‘Asian’ doesn’t do well to convey the diversity of this population, that adheres many different religions, speak many different languages, are culturally quite diverse, as well as being quite phenotypically different from each other. The largest ethnicities counted for among ‘Asians’ are Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, Koreans, and Japanese. Each group standing alone would barely make up 1% of the U.S populace. Why do I bring this to bare is because, when arguing that a group is underrepresented in something we need to understand what percentage that group is of the populace. Because Asians make up a relatively small minority of the United States it seems logical they would also make up a small percentage of who we see in the media.

The second point I would like to bare is that people argue why filmmakers would cast a Caucasian lead in a film based on a Japanese property. It is important to understand just because a film is based on works from another culture doesn’t automatically mean the film is going to be set in that setting. Keep in mind that this is an American adaptation of Japanese fictional story, so casting actors that fit the American standards(which according to us Census is still 60% white) isn’t that absurd. There are many instances when for example Japanese producers adapt American properties for their own market, casting Japanese actors in roles played by traditionally white actors, I think of the Japanese 1970s live-action Spider-Man TV show.

Finally, quite comically, is how the Japanese view this situation themselves. In an article by Kotaku, internet comments by Japanese fans seem to convey that Japanese themselves don’t see this a big deal. In fact, comments reflect how ironic it is that White people in the United States are bothered by this issue more so than are Japanese people. I have attached the link to this article here…http://kotaku.com/the-japanese-internet-reacts-to-scarlet-johansson-in-gh-1771544034

by Tags: , , , , , , , , , 5 Comments

Why Gender is not fully a social construct(part 1)

The argument has been made that gender is fully a social construct, with no biological merit. I want to argue against this point. First, I do consolidate to the fact that there are obvious cultural artifices in constructing how the two sexes behave. Pink is for girls while blue is for boys, Ashley is a girl’s name and john is a boys name, etc, these are all examples of gender norms put in place by society. But there is also certain predisposition that is fully biologically based. Point one, men and women have varying degrees of hormonal difference. Men on average have far higher levels of testosterone than women and women on average have far higher levels of estrogen. Our emotions and behaviors are heavily based on chemicals in our brain. For example, higher levels of testosterone lead to a higher instance of aggression, assertiveness, and violence. Estrogen makes individuals more empathetic. These two chemical being unequally distributed among the sexes leads to both having two different biological dispositions and behavior.

There has many who point out how Gender roles are socially based. But I want to argue that gender roles are a part of human evolution. Humans are a sexually dimorphic species which means that there is the physiological difference between the two. First men are on average 3 inches taller and weigh 25% more than women. Nature doesn’t just make species sexual dimorphic unless there was some sexual are surviving benefits from it. Case in point, a book written by Leonard Shlain “Sex, Time, and Power”(A must read) Shlain( a surgeon) theorizes that because women on general suffer from Iron deficiency(due to the fact they lose blood every month from menstrual cycles, as well as their red blood cells produce less Iron), and the fact women have to go through eight months gestation and six years weaning a newborn child. Women needed men to help them attain Iron by providing her with meat, in return the man got copulation.

For those(particularly feminist) who are skeptical about this. Imagine 150 thousand years ago, living in the Savannah of East Africa being a pregnant mother(let’s imagine 6 months) trying to go hunting. You would put yourself as well as your child at great risk. Sure you would be able to go forging, but subsisting on local vegetation alone will not be enough for you are your gestating child. Men would have to go out and hunt while the woman remained in the village. This arrangement would exist for all of humanity until the emergence of civilization around 10 thousand years ago.

With the beginning of civilization, humans moved away from solely surviving on wild game and vegetation but to domesticating both crop and animals. Many of the roles that woman had previously still remained somewhat the same, because women still got pregnant and had to attend to her young children. Men now had to attend to the field are face starvation. We see the emergence of patriarchy in this time period. Men having a physical advantage over women, took responsibility of keeping the society safe from outsiders as well as seeing to all the intense labor required for agriculture.

Feminism as we know it wouldn’t become a serious ideology in Human affairs until the industrial revolution. For good reason. Humanity(at least in the west) weren’t reliant on muscle power but that of stem and steel to grow its food. Women could go out for work. This new era of technological advancement is the only reason feminism was able to emerge!

by Tags: , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment