Thw whole claim that muslims treated the so called “lower castes” better is just theory. They continued to be treated unfairly. What explains the obsession with fair skin in Pakistan? Infact I have seen a popular TV host from Pak “the fourman show” calling indians kaale aur gandey

well, my suggestion is to them is to drop a couple of “postcolonials” in the conversation. but delay the use of the word “subaltern” till at least the third date. don’t want the person to get all hot and othered.

hmm… maybe im in gteh wrong city or something. I meet a lot of vapid desi women.

Too many of you are taking for granted why the upper-castes are lighter skinned in the first place (if that’s true. I haven’t been to India). Now India has been invaded many times by Arabs, Persians, Mongolians etc. and their genes must have been absorbed into the upper caste and that might-be the reason behind upper castes’ lighter skin.

Lizzie, I understood you, but my point is this

Any colorism with class would still be racist because the upper castes wouldn’t have originated with light-skin. There would have been no reason for any favoritism or association of light-skin with higher status as long as the upper castes are completely indigenous Indians who therefore should inherit dark-brown skin like most Indians. If things changed in between our day and the time the Ajanta Paintings were made there would have had to have been a change in the upper-castes’ ancestry and genes. Again, I disagree with saying it’s from class because class systems in each nation don’t originate with foreign rule or the upper class physiology differing from the natives. The real root of such a standard would still be racism. Take Brazil for example. While beauty standards that value light-skin and straight hair can be said to be a class issue the dynamic was still caused by colonial racism stratifying Europeans at the top and blacks/mestizos at the bottom.

Self deprecation is against human nature. Human beings love self, so on a mass scale civilizations’ always prized their culture as the best and things like beauty standards supporting common physical attributes like skin color would be a given. India didn’t always favor light-skin above their own dark skin. There was a time when dark-skin, especially the darkest shades, were highly valued, but to read you guys’ comments you make India’s self loathing seem from time immemorial!

I was in no way claiming that the “light-skin heirarchy” is “simply a class issue.” In no way. I would never dismiss the poisonous cultural affects of colonialism and racist social heirarchies. OF COURSE colonialism and racism have left their stamp on the beauty ideals of India.

I tried to acknowledge as much in my original post:

I do not want to downplay the cultural effects of colonialism

and

Obviously, class issues get tangled up with racist beauty standards in a colonized or slave-holding society

I was simply trying to point out that colorism (prizing one shade of skin above another within an ethnic group) exists in many cultures and that it probably has had to do with class (historically) AS WELL AS race. That’s all. I never claimed it was only about class. If colorism of any kind did exist in pre-colonial India, I am 100% sure that European colonialism and racism strengthened and twisted it into something much stronger and much worse.

If you care to observe there is a variation in the skin color of rich people (need not be upper caste but in majority of the cases they will be) and poorer ones. Even brown people become dark if they work in the sun for long time ( I have not seen any farmers who have very fair complexion). Next time you go to India, check out the chic in the Merc and compare her complexion to any of the poor/daily labors, you’ll see the difference.

Perhaps the light-skin of the upper castes is recent?

I think the upper castes are comparatively lighter (it is debatable!??) because the woman with fair complexion were married to upper castes. If you know, a lower caste woman marrying a upper caste man was tolerated and the light skinned lower caste female had more incentives to do that. This is probably done over many years even before Europeans came. (Just my theory, no data to prove it)

I think you’re assuming a perspective that I don’t have. I’m not saying light skinned people are better than dark skinned people or even that they’re different.

No I didn’t. What I meant was people including you need to stop thinking that elitism beings with the upper class being light-skinned. Your problem is viewing light skin as more original than dark skin. I’ll say it again: all complexions are genetic and most ancient Indian elites were dark-skinned.

people with lighter skin would be more likely to marry into higher-status families

.

Yes and for that reason here’s a thought. Perhaps the light-skin of the upper castes is recent? I don’t necessarily mean that they’re mixed with European but that along with the post-colonial favoritism of light-skin used by the British (or other Europeans) might have made the elites disproportionately light-skinned than they might have been before. To clarify, the desire to breed-out dark skin or favor light-skinned mates as you mentioned might have happened only in the last several hundred years and it only seems like forever to us since our lifespans don’t last long. We can’t get on a time machine and see what upper caste Indians looked like before European contact. So I think many posters here insisting that India’s colorism is pre-colonial and that upper castes were light skinned is presumptuous.